Are you serious?
You have been blathering on about how ignorant people are on this subject and how that ignorance inspires “emotional opinions not based on fact” and you are just now hearing that those who fell below the poverty line in the pre welfare United States were a cyclical group?
You really don’t know that almost every family fell into the poverty category at one time or another and then climbed out before welfare?
How about this, we have the SAME percentage of poor as before the Welfare State so all we have gleaned from these TRILLIONS of dollars is making a cyclical problem into a generational problem, no improvement in the poverty rate at all.
Physician heal thyself.
But that’s not what is happening to Latinos. As Latinos go further up in economic success, they vote more and more Republican.
Same to their voter participation; when that goes up, they also vote more Republican.
And that I think is the classification error being made; Latinos are not a repeat of Urban blacks. They’re a repeat of the Italians; to include folding up their identity as “white” overtime.
Thomas Sowell likes to point out that before ~1962, the poverty rate was dropping by about 1% a year. After that, the poverty rate stagnated, and has never dropped further.
For the record, I’m not arguing for assistance programs as they exist today. Growing up with a single mom in the 1970’s I’m more than familiar with how the system makes it hard to escape poverty. I’m simply arguing that that the choice to provide or not provide assistance is not a binary question. I think there are lots of ways to do it right and lots of ways to do it wrong.
And Democrats have routinely found…and consistently practiced…the WRONG way to do almost everything. There was an old “Blue Bloods” episode that demonstrated this attitude. A young girl was assigned to go on “ride-alongs” with NYPD officers. She’d been arrested for drug possession and assault. One of the officers asked her where she saw herself in 5 or 6 years. Her reply was, “I was HOPING to get pregnant and get on welfare, but if I can’t do that, I can work the streets.” In MY day, the answer would be, “I want to get a good job, get married and raise a family, but first I have to graduate from high school.”
But the Party that you regularly stump for and that is 100 percent aware of the abject failure of the Welfare State to achieve anything beyond creating a hopeless and permanent situation out of a temporary hardship is absolutely unwilling to undo this catastrophe.
Now you may not like the reason that I offer for that, namely that they care more about their captive constituency than they ever cared about “helping the poor”; but I would ask you to offer up a reasonable alternative motive for defending a “solution” that was a known clear failure less than 10 after it was implemented.
We are 50 years into this family destroying chaos and any mention of stopping the insanity is still met with accusations that the one who mentioned it “is a greedy racist who hates the poor”.
I am not the one lacking an education on this subject and I am not the one advocating for the abyss that has swallowed 5 decades (and counting) of Americans of every ethnic origin.
If it isn’t for votes then what is the reason for building and maintaining this hopeless, slave electorate?
Wait a minute . . .
Are you saying that Affirmative Action is something that is needed?
IOW, if a child is failing then government intervention is what is needed?
Yes, I know you said this:
But that is contrary to what you said above.
When my mother was a school teacher in the 1960s and '70s, she had 5th grade children telling her that their ambition when they grew up was to go to Georgetown (the county seat) and sign up for welfare. That was their goal in life, which is a pretty sad state of affairs.
A lot of this nonsense started with Lyndon Johnson and his “War on Poverty.” Under his programs, teenage girls would get pregnant and get rewarded. They got an apartment of their own, out from under any adult supervision, which something they wanted. If they got pregnant again, they got more money. In the mean time if there was a man living in the house, they were penalized. All this did was break-up a lot of minority families, which did nothing to fix the core problems.
Of course all of this worked well for the Democrats. They ended up with a consistent core of votes who kept them in office. That situation continues today.
No. What I said has nothing to do with affirmative action. If that’s the way you read it, let me assure you, I don’t support affirmative action because if what I’m suggesting is implemented, then every child should have what they need to succeed. From there the only issue is assuring that qualified people aren’t passed over because they are of a certain race, religion, orientation, whatever… But I do not promote the idea that someone less qualified should be elevated to a position over others soley because of their race, religion, orientation etc.
Depends on why.
Then perhaps a misspoke or worded something poorly. Quote me and I’ll do my best to straighten it out for you.
Answer me this…Would you support a revamped system of any kind if it involved giving people assistence?
Isn’t that what representatives do is support their constituencies? You all make it sound as though doing something to win the support of voters is somehow an evil thing. The “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure, yet politicians still vow to fight it because there are people that believe it’s a good idea and politicians want to capture their votes. How is that any different?
Matter of fact, if I was so inclined (though I’m not at the moment), I bet I could find lots of ideas that politicians promote to win votes that don’t work.
For example, spending tens of billions on a border wall. That won’t work, especially when you measure it relative to the money it will take to create yet politicians pander to those who want it built.
Again, not sure how pandering to bad ideas to win the votes of constituents is anything new.
The question we should all be asking is, what is the goal that is to be achieved by “_________” policy and how is what we are doing meeting that goal?
Now Ret claims that welfare is a system that Dems know is broken and promote anyway. But last I checked, there are lots of Dems that want reform in the system. There are lots of Republicans that simply want to eliminate it. So we end up with a system that’s deadlocked in failure mode.
Now, I’d argue that Ret believes that the reason for offering assistance is based solely on corrupt motives. To gain votes from poor people.
Yet, ironically, if that were true, why are the poorest states with the highest population of black people consistently Republican, whereas the opposite also tends to be true?
It would seem to me, and perhaps someone can straighten me out on this, but whether a state is a D or an R has to do with where you live. Do you live in the south? Do you live in a city? Not if the state is filled with poor people and minorities.
Nothing that is “given” by government to individuals is without cost…both economic and social. Government CANNOT “give” stuff to anyone that it hasn’t first taken away from someone else to whom it actually belongs…usually by force or at least the threat of force. Those of you on the left MUST learn that if you really want America to continue.
The War on Drugs is a “failure” ONLY because it gets so much resistance from the left and their sycophants in the entertainment and “news” media.
Do we really want to travel down this road again?
The government declares it’s money legal tender and then creates it and spends it into the economy. People have to earn it because the government requires taxes payable only in the money the government creates. So while the government does take by force, it takes less than it puts in (this is why we have deficits and debt). Our money is based on debt.
Ret is going to remind me that banks make money, not the government and that’s partially true (banks make most of the money that we use each day), but banks in the net all the money they create is offset by an equal liability that must be repaid. So bank money is temporary and only adds money if money borrowed exceeds money repaid. In the end, it is the government that supplies money that makes it possible for banks to expand the money system. The government doesn’t really create money and send it to banks. It instructs the Fed to credit the reserve accounts of the banks at the Fed and those banks in turn credit the accounts of those the government wishes to pay.
And AS will remind me that I’m totally wrong, we’ll argue back and forth for 25 posts and won’t make any ground.
That’s the funniest thing I read in a long time.
It fails because drug use follows the patterns of disease, and people are, on average, not helped by interaction with the legal justice system.
They are in fact more likely to bounce back from addiction, if they are never arrested in the first place.
No disagreement in general with the point of your post. Just gotta say, a one time expense for $50 billion? That’s small potatoes in context of federal spending.
So, very few people would end this system overnight, I doubt many conservatives-Republicans want to abolish it entirely. I do though – but not overnight. That means there’s a lot of room to negotiate reform. But Dems want to increase the system not move incrementally away from it. Near as I can gather when I listen to lefties, the “broken” part of the system is that it isn’t enough – and of course never will be but they either miss that fact or just don’t care about reality.
In a true free market, property distributions are just, and so no redistributive schemes are necessary as a matter of justice. This is a point virtually all libertarians agree upon, including myself.
Left-wing libertarians such as myself, however, argue that what we have isn’t a true free market. What we have is a crony capitalism with a state that intervenes heavily on behalf of the wealthy to force the poor and working class into wage labor and welfare programs.
In a system of crony capitalism, redistributive schemes along Rawlsian moral lines are necessary as a matter of justice. The only question is what kind of schemes. Personally, I favor getting rid of the entire current system (social security, medicare, food stamps, etc.) in favor of a simple minimum basic income.