The Baltimore riot...

[AC]

I forgot that before "The Great Society" all these black people lived in affluent suburbs, had a high rate of literacy, and had well-paying jobs as they lived in harmony with the white people. Silly me. How could I have forgotten that?

You most certainly did forget.  Who said that Western liberal propaganda is not nearly as effective as Russian propaganda?

In fact more blacks were employed.  More black children grew up in solid two parent families.  Black literacy rates were higher.

If a black man got a black woman pregnant, he was expected to do the right thing and marry her and start a solid family -- by societal pressure -- mostly from conservative black society.

Once the government replaced the black man as being a woman's provider, this quickly changed.  Once societal expectations of what was expected of a man and a woman changed, black men quickly began to get multiple women pregnant, and many black women had multiple babies, from different fathers.

No need for a solid family from which to raise the children in a safe and literate environment, when "sugar daddy" government will give you handouts and public housing, which became black ghettos and a form of prison.

[AC]

excerpt
Mr. Williams, an economist at George Mason University, is contrasting being black and poor in the 1940s and ’50s with today’s experience. It’s a theme that permeates his short, bracing volume of reminiscence, and it’s where we began our conversation on a recent morning at his home in suburban Philadelphia.

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

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


http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/23/the-welfare-state-has-destroyed-the-black-familywalter-williams-interviewed-by-jason-riley/

[LAman]

Lol @ the usual foreigner goof troop commenting on things in the US.

Is there anything that you're not a know it all/expert in, Boe?

 

Now that is freakin funny..........imagine that.....a forum devoted to foreigners commenting on other countries!!! No, no, that doesn't happen here!!!!! 

[LiveFromUkraine]

Now that is freakin funny..........imagine that.....a forum devoted to foreigners commenting on other countries!!! No, no, that doesn't happen here!!!!! 

What is funny is he was just explaining to us all the problems that make England a "shithole" the other month yet never lived there. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

Oh, right.


I forgot that before "The Great Society" all these black people lived in affluent suburbs, had a high rate of literacy, and had well-paying jobs as they lived in harmony with the white people. Silly me. How could I have forgotten that?

I believe he means the time when whites had white neighborhoods and blacks had their own. 

[AC]

I believe he means the time when whites had white neighborhoods and blacks had their own.

Thank you for actually helping me to make my point.  Prior to the "Great Society" more blacks live in two parent families and had safer neighborhoods to live in.

Because of the great society more blacks today live in poverty and in racially segregated areas, known as the projects.

They are at much greater risk of being robbed or killed, due to black on black crime.  Poverty rates, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities and lack of being raised in a stable two parent family are all higher due to misguided welfare policies.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Thank you for actually helping me to make my point.  Prior to the "Great Society" more blacks live in two parent families and had safer neighborhoods to live in.

Because of the great society more blacks today live in poverty and in racially segregated areas, known as the projects.

They are at much greater risk of being robbed or killed, due to black on black crime.  Poverty rates, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities and lack of being raised in a stable two parent family are all higher due to misguided welfare policies.

I understood where you were coming from.  I heard it before.  I think the idea behind the segregation being better was the more affluent black people were role models.  Once segregation happened, the successful people left the neighborhoods and thus no more good role models.


I don't necessarily buy that myself, but that was a theory being tossed around.


I do agree that the lack of a two parent families does more harm than good. 

[AC]

I understood where you were coming from.  I heard it before.  I think the idea behind the segregation being better was the more affluent black people were role models for the less affluent.  Once segregation happened, the affluent people left the neighborhoods and thus no more good role models.

I do agree that the lack of a two parent families does more harm than good.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote.  Segregation is a completely different subject.  It's very good that segregation is no longer legal, it was a blight on our society.

Keep in mind that the party who fought a bitter civil war to end slavery was the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln.

The party of Jim Crow is the Democratic Party.  They suddenly switched from trying to hold blacks down, to allegedly trying to help blacks.  I say allegedly, because all of their policies are misguided at best, and with deliberate nefarious intention at worst.

[LiveFromUkraine]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote.  Segregation is a completely different subject.  It's very good that segregation is no longer legal, it was a blight on our society.

Keep in mind that the party who fought a bitter civil war to end slavery was the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln.

The party of Jim Crow is the Democratic Party.  They suddenly switched from trying to hold blacks down, to allegedly trying to help blacks.  I say allegedly, because all of their policies are misguided at best, and with deliberate nefarious intention at worst.

But segregation was part of the "Great Society".   I'm not talking slavery, I'm talking you live there, you shop there and don't cross he line where we live stuff.  That is part of the time you are referring too unless I am mistaken.  You can certainly correct me if that wasn't the time you were referring too.


It's difficult to try and point at what worked and what didn't when looking at these different time periods. That is the reason I brought up the segregation in the first place.  Was it the loss of role models to desegregation or was it strictly governmental changes like you believe or possibly a mixture of all.


It's the same as Cal trying to compare different time periods and say it's mainly laziness that people are not working.   The jobs available are totally different from the good ole days Cal talked about to what we have available here.  The world was much smaller back then and now we are competing globally with companies manufacturing in many different low cost countries.  Those types of jobs that people could walk in and start working for a good wage are long gone.   I talked about my home town and how the employment landscape changed in a drastic way (as well as the demographics).


I do believe the family unit being broke up is to blame. Back in the good ole days divorce was shunned.  Now, it is normal to get married and divorce many times.  It is normal to have kids with many different partners.  Still, what is the cause of this.  Economics certainly can break up a family and two people working all the time barely making ends meet would destroy many marriages.


As for what some consider government handouts, I can see both ways here.  I don't think we should make it so people don't want to work or are not motivated to better themselves, but we can't leave them to starve either.  Like I said before, the jobs are just not there anymore and are requiring more sophisticate skill sets that many of the population just can't learn.

I think where I differ to many here is I do believe the majority of people want to work and take care of their own.  Many do work while also needing assistance because, as I said, the better paying jobs are just not there. 

[The Natural]

As for what some consider government handouts, I can see both ways here.  I don't think we should make it so people don't want to work or are not motivated to better themselves, but we can't leave them to starve either.  Like I said before, the jobs are just not there anymore and are requiring more sophisticate skill sets that many of the population just can't learn.

I think where I differ to many here is I do believe the majority of people want to work and take care of their own.  Many do work while also needing assistance because, as I said, the better paying jobs are just not there. 

USA should look to Europe in this situation. You don't want to make it too attractive to not work, but on the other hand, you can't Accept People starving either. Let the state be responsible for Food and shelter for those in need. If they want the normal "luxuries" of middle class lives, and most do, let them work for it. But not by the stick but rather the carrott (if you use the same analogy we do).

[LiveFromUkraine]

USA should look to Europe in this situation. You don't want to make it too attractive to not work, but on the other hand, you can't Accept People starving either. Let the state be responsible for Food and shelter for those in need. If they want the normal "luxuries" of middle class lives, and most do, let them work for it. But not by the stick but rather the carrott (if you use the same analogy we do).

Right, though, I do think that education and positive reinforcement is also needed.  Our higher education is way too expensive and the government backed loans a big reason for it.  I really do think we need to look into a better way of providing education to those that want it.  Maybe the Europe way is better, I don't know enough about it. I do know it is much cheaper.


I also think if you keep telling a group of people they are criminals, thugs and lazy good for nothings, they will end up just owning those titles and simply give up.  I was lucky that I had a family that supports me.  I was able to get that positive reinforcement through them.  Not everyone has that and it's something that is very crucial if we want to see more people succeed.


Even with all of that, if there are no jobs, it is all pointless. 

[LAman]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote.  Segregation is a completely different subject.  It's very good that segregation is no longer legal, it was a blight on our society.

Keep in mind that the party who fought a bitter civil war to end slavery was the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln.

The party of Jim Crow is the Democratic Party.  They suddenly switched from trying to hold blacks down, to allegedly trying to help blacks.  I say allegedly, because all of their policies are misguided at best, and with deliberate nefarious intention at worst.

My view of political history is different between centuries.... who switched?????

as an example:  http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

[AC]

My view of political history is different between centuries.... who switched?????

as an example:  http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

An excellent article LAman, however it does not really examine how the Democratic Party was the party of the Jim Crow South, which did their best to hold black people back.  It also does not examine the possible real reasons that LBJ came up with his "great society" (he was a likely a racist who knew he could pander his programs to misguided persons in government and the media) and some of the other nefarious things the Democrats were doing. 


excerpt
Mr. Williams distinguished himself in the mid-1970s through his research on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931—which got the government involved in setting wage levels—and on the impact of minimum-wage law on youth and minority unemployment. He concluded that minimum wages caused high rates of teenage unemployment, particularly among minority teenagers. His research also showed that Davis-Bacon, which requires high prevailing (read: union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, was the product of lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations.
end of excerpt

Notice the part that I bolded LAman?  Those lawmakers with explicitly racist motivations, were Democrats from the South.  How could that be, when the media constantly informs us that Democrats care about black people, and Republicans do not?

further excerpt
One of Congress’s goals at the time was to stop black laborers from displacing whites by working for less money. Missouri Rep. John Cochran said that he had “received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics.” And Alabama Rep. Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with “cheap colored labor . . . of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”

Today just 17% of construction workers are unionized, but Democratic politicians, in deference to the AFL-CIO, have kept Davis-Bacon in place to protect them. Because most black construction workers aren’t union members, however, the law has the effect of freezing them out of jobs. It also serves to significantly increase the costs of government projects, since there are fewer contractors to bid on them than there would be without Davis-Bacon.
end of excerpt

So I wholeheartedly agree with LFU and you and any others who think the way to help blacks, is to increase black employment.  One way to do this would be to do away with the high costs of government projects which only use union workers.  The unions, as designed by Jim Crow Southern lawmakers, were designed to hurt black employment prospects.

Putting most blacks into the projects and giving them welfare, as designed by LBJ's nefarious and racist policies did not help them.  Destroying the two-parent black family structure did not help them.  Unions did not help them.  All Democratic liberal polices.


Source of article excerpts is an interview with economist Walter Williams.
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/01/23/the-welfare-state-has-destroyed-the-black-familywalter-williams-interviewed-by-jason-riley/

[alex330]

Where do you hail from?


Where were you raised? White middle-class neighborhood?


Where stories about that "those" people are mooching the system taking away your hard-earned tax dollars abound?


I'm betting that's close to it.

Look who we have here, our very own Walter Mercado.

I come from Hawaii where as a child my father worked two jobs to support us. He woke up at 4am for his day job as a ranger with the park service and scrubbed hotel toilets at night.

Currently I live in South Florida, my home sits about 8 blocks from Dixie Highway. I am the only white guy on my block.

[The Natural]

Right, though, I do think that education and positive reinforcement is also needed.  Our higher education is way too expensive and the government backed loans a big reason for it.  I really do think we need to look into a better way of providing education to those that want it.  Maybe the Europe way is better, I don't know enough about it. I do know it is much cheaper.


I also think if you keep telling a group of people they are criminals, thugs and lazy good for nothings, they will end up just owning those titles and simply give up.  I was lucky that I had a family that supports me.  I was able to get that positive reinforcement through them.  Not everyone has that and it's something that is very crucial if we want to see more people succeed.


Even with all of that, if there are no jobs, it is all pointless.

Yes, if it's all outsourced, we're all screwed.

But if it's a functional society, it can't be that higher education is only for the well-off. I'm middle class European and in my country education is free, you only pay for books. So I got my 3 year college degree while working 44%, an internship in USA (had to pay for that, travel and stay), had a good life really. Had a student loan of 20 000 dollars that was really not called for. But was Young and stupid and spending too much, but got my degree With a job guarantee in practical terms and a higher pay. Now, almost 20 years later, student loan paid off and a pretty safe job earning 70000 a year. We get by okay. Of course now With a loan on the house, haha. We never really get off the hook, do we?

[BillyB]

Most Western societies have handouts and quotas, in fact, in many countries, they are far more generous than in the U.S., yet they don't have your violence. 

America is regularly #1 for having the most generous people. We donate money and volunteer more often than citizens in other countries. As a nation we give the most to other nations. Having welfare isn't the only measure of generosity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index


Americans are generous and minorities can succeed in America so much that I would have to wonder what is the problem with the rest of the world. Why can't citizens in other nations exhibit those fine qualities and have programs and a system in place for minorities to succeed so well? Maybe there are problems in their society they need to fix?


As for the rise in police shootings, ask Obama who promised hope and change. Americans on welfare and food stamps have risen by tens of millions yet police shootings in the most liberal American cities have also risen. Obama divides people, not unite.

USA should look to Europe in this situation. You don't want to make it too attractive to not work, but on the other hand, you can't Accept People starving either. Let the state be responsible for Food and shelter for those in need. If they want the normal "luxuries" of middle class lives, and most do, let them work for it. But not by the stick but rather the carrott (if you use the same analogy we do).

We don't have starving people except for those mentally ill or spends all their money on drugs. Our poor are fat. Panhandlers are fat. Everybody in this world should pull their own weight. Most of us can not only pull our weight but support a family too. Welfare and unemployment insurance are good things to have when people are down but there should be a limit to how much it can be used to get people back on their feet. I understand some nations in Europe have cradle to grave welfare. How motivated are those people to work knowing they will have welfare for life? Those on handouts will continue to grow and eventually those that carry the burden will meet their breaking point.

[Steamer]

We don't have starving people except for those mentally ill or spends all their money on drugs.

Don't forget those on diets, I tell you I've been starving for months.

[The Natural]

Don't forget those on diets, I tell you I've been starving for months.

Haha, come here and we'll put you on welfare.

[Muzh]

I believe he means the time when whites had white neighborhoods and blacks had their own.

Oh you mean he is talking about the glory days?

[Muzh]

You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote. Segregation is a completely different subject.  It's very good that segregation is no longer legal, it was a blight on our society.

By all means. PLEASE explain.

[Muzh]

Look who we have here, our very own Walter Mercado.

I come from Hawaii where as a child my father worked two jobs to support us. He woke up at 4am for his day job as a ranger with the park service and scrubbed hotel toilets at night.

Currently I live in South Florida, my home sits about 8 blocks from Dixie Highway. I am the only white guy on my block.

 


OMG!! That was a good one!!!


Edit: Are you like a Marriota-white?

[AC]

By all means. PLEASE explain.

Since you claim to care about black issues, here is your chance to vote for a real black leader, one who came out of the projects in Boston, and a man who lived in Baltimore for many years. 


http://www.freep.com/news/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/03/ben-carson-president-2016_n_6481534.html

[Muzh]

Since you claim to care about black issues, here is your chance to vote for a real black leader, one who came out of the projects in Boston, and a man who lived in Baltimore for many years. 


http://www.freep.com/news/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/03/ben-carson-president-2016_n_6481534.html

Was I talking to you? Go take your meds.

[tfcrew]

 Baltimore Received $1.8 Billion from Obama’s Stimulus Law 

City burned despite ‘massive investment’ implemented by president
May 4, 2015 5:00 am The city of Baltimore received over $1.8 billion from President Barack Obama’s stimulus law, including $467.1 million to invest in education and $26.5 million for crime prevention.
President Obama claimed last Tuesday that if the Republican-controlled Congress would implement his policies to make “massive investments in urban communities,” they could “make a difference right now” in the city, currently in upheaval following the death of Freddie Gray.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/baltimore-received-1-8-billion-from-obamas-stimulus-law/

                           

[Slumba]

Baltimore Received $1.8 Billion from Obama’s Stimulus Law 


http://freebeacon.com/issues/baltimore-received-1-8-billion-from-obamas-stimulus-law/

                           

And it can't be Republican's fault, in that the entire Baltimore political machine is Democrat from top to bottom, and has been for decades.