|
Post by marshabar1 on Jun 4, 2011 10:53:46 GMT -5
Walter E. Williams, a George Mason economist and author of “Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?” is not a fan of the welfare state that exists in the country. In an appearance on Thursday night’s “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network, Williams argued that welfare has done more damage to black society than slavery or Jim Crow.
According to George Mason economist and author Walter E. Williams:
“[T]he welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family. That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from 1870s on up to about 1940s, and depending on the city, 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two parent families. Illegitimacy rate is 70 percent among blacks where that is unprecedented in our history.”
“The government has said to many young women, I am the father. And so the father, black males, have become dispensable and that’s a heck of a start in life, that is, to be born — you don’t know who or where your father is, that’s not really great start in life.”
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 4, 2011 10:57:53 GMT -5
So women only marry for money? My buddies used to tell me that.
|
|
|
Post by marshabar1 on Jun 4, 2011 11:18:54 GMT -5
Black fathers have been made unnecessary because of lack of decent paying jobs that can support families and now it is happening to white families as well. Williams points out that there was a time when blacks had a higher employment rate than whites. Welfare made it easy to just say no to work. In England they are doing the same to their population. A friend's British ex-wife is having her forth child with her Portuguese boyfriend. They, along with his brother, live rent free in a very nice 3 bedroom estate house. None of the three adults work. More children means more money. Talk about a scheme to make society sick. Socialism. Yecchhh!
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 4, 2011 11:29:50 GMT -5
I personaly know more whites recieving some form of welfare than blacks,but then again,I know more whites than blacks.Any stats proving there are more blacks on aid than whites? I have seen articles claiming both,one recently stating the majority were rural whites.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 4, 2011 12:33:42 GMT -5
Black fathers have been made unnecessary because of lack of decent paying jobs that can support families and now it is happening to white families as well. Lack of decent paying jobs or lack of desire to make the effort to support oneself? Perhaps the problem is sitting around waiting for someone else to give them a job? maybe???
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 4, 2011 13:14:46 GMT -5
In the beginning, if there was a man in the house welfare payments were limited. It may still be like that. How's THAT for promoting family values? It is very true today that the income tax tables promote single parent families. As a reality there will always be low paying jobs. The tax laws say the lower your income the less tax you pay. They even toss in an incentive to limit your income by adding an incentive called Earned Income Tax Credit. For those who don't know, it works like this: Two people with at least one child, who each makes $20,000 a year, ($40,000 in total income), There is a way to boost the tax refund by thousands of dollars, with the bigger the number of children the bigger the possible refund boost. Just split the kids up, use only their own incomes, and don't file a joint tax return. Filing as Head of Household nets the biggest increase in refund, but claiming dependents and filing as Single works, too. Of course there are risks of getting caught, but what is risk compared to several thousand dollars that can be explained away as "misunderstanding the rules"? See page 58 in the IRS tables here: www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/2010%20EITC%20Tables.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 13:41:44 GMT -5
I personally know more whites receiving some form of welfare than blacks,but then again,I know more whites than blacks.Any stats proving there are more blacks on aid than whites? I have seen articles claiming both,one recently stating the majority were rural whites.
I'm sure that it's doing the same to white families. This isn't a strictly "black" thing. The programs was supposed to help people but instead is hurting them by taking away their motivation to better themselves. This "temporary" program has been supporting generations of families. Once upon a time families worked for the same employer generation after generation. Now they just collect money from the government generation after generation.
Welfare was meant to be a plus for society but wasn't thought though. Instead it has shackled people to a poverty standard that they can't break free from. Nothing new here. Conservatives have been saying this forever & the only answer we get from Liberals is the story about the poor starving fictional baby. Well it's time to let that fictional baby die & maybe the next kid that fictional mother has, she can afford to pay to keep in because she is earning a living.
Of course this will either fall on deaf ears or I'll be accused of fictional baby killing but good intent with a poor follow thru & little or no government oversight has caused this problem. Maybe (but I doubt it) it's time for a few liberals to join with conservatives & actually address these problems rather than rushing like a chicken with it's head cut off to the next cause in the liberal agenda.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 4, 2011 13:47:17 GMT -5
...while there may be disparity in welfare statistics on ethnic background, imo govt. welfare makes all fathers "dispensable" in this situation...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 4, 2011 14:01:05 GMT -5
...and plantation here we are, nanny-state style...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 14:13:21 GMT -5
You know, welfare did not invent poor people. I googled it and the numbers living in poverty at the turn of the 20th century is estimated to be 20%, in the 1930's more like 40%. Welfare did not take away anyone's motivation, it just stops them from starving to death.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 14:25:47 GMT -5
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htmMany conservatives believe that welfare does not accomplish what it sets out to do; that, despite decades of massive anti-poverty spending, poverty is still with us, and perhaps even worse than before. In fact, some conservatives make even more ambitious claims: poverty was not a problem in America until President Johnson declared war on it. Some hearken back to a golden age that never was, claiming that charity was sufficient to solve what little poverty there was. Neither history nor the statistics bear out these myths. Poverty was greater in the U.S. before Roosevelt established the New Deal. Since then, welfare has been an important tool in alleviating poverty, not just in America but abroad as well. Before 1964, official statistics on poverty did not exist, and it was not the focus of government attention. However, mainstream scholars disagree little over the broad generalizations of decades prior. By one estimate, 56 percent of all American families lived in poverty in the year 1900. (1) The so-called "Roaring 20s" were a period of economic polarization, with less than 1 percent of the population earning a "rich" salary of $100,000 a year, about 15 percent earning a "middle class" income, and about half of all Americans struggling to make ends meet. (2) While investors and stock brokers were enjoying boom times on Wall Street, entire sectors of the economy were depressed: agriculture, coal, railroads, shipyards, textiles and shoes were all in decline. In fact, between 1923 and 1929, the lower 93 percent of the nonfarm population experienced a 4 percent decline in real disposable per capita income. (3) For farmers, it was even worse. During this era, "laissez-faire" philosophies dominated government policy, and welfare programs were virtually nonexistent. The Great Depression brought much deeper poverty, of course, but almost all the damage was done on Hoover's watch. Under Hoover, the economy shrank an average of -8.4 percent a year; under Roosevelt, it grew an average of 6.4 percent a year until 1940, the year it finally returned to its 1929 level. During this recovery, Roosevelt launched the New Deal, essentially creating the modern American welfare state. Dozens of programs were instituted that redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor. Perhaps the greatest of these was Social Security, which Congress passed in 1935. Prior to Social Security, it was common to see old people starving in the streets after they retired. Social Security largely eliminated this shameful sight. Furthermore, the Social Security Act created Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the program popularly known today as "welfare."
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 4, 2011 14:26:47 GMT -5
You know, welfare did not invent poor people. I googled it and the numbers living in poverty at the turn of the 20th century is estimated to be 20%, in the 1930's more like 40%. Welfare did not take away anyone's motivation, it just stops them from starving to death. I agree, laterbloomer. While there are definitely some who take advantage of safety nets put in place to keep those who try, but fail, from starving to death, for the most part these people just need a hand up ... and a job to go to when they've received some training. Right now, the economy is fighting us on all sides. It's a nasty situation for everyone, but it's especially nasty for those who have little and are the most vulnerable.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 4, 2011 14:40:08 GMT -5
You know, welfare did not invent poor people. . You're right...it just helps enable it and makes it a "lifestyle."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 14:42:57 GMT -5
You know, welfare did not invent poor people. . You're right...it just helps enable it and makes it a "lifestyle." Wrong again. It has always been "a lifestyle" for some. There were higher poverty rates when the "lifestyle" meant starving to death.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 4, 2011 15:06:32 GMT -5
Fine with me, toughtimes. I think it's quite reasonable to expect those who are able-bodied to do something productive in exchange for the welfare/food stamps/rent subsidies they receive. In fact, I think it's mandatory and was glad to see it come to be. I just think we have to be a lot more proactive in seeing the welfare system used for what it should be and not so some can malinger. That is going to take people, and those people have to be paid, so it's going to take money. If you don't have people to ensure what's being claimed as a disability is actually a disability that precludes any sort of work, you're going to have those who'll misuse the system. Not an easy nut to crack, I'm afraid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 15:15:28 GMT -5
Tex, let me give you an example of what puts people on welfare.
Toughtimes of course your right because that's a valid reason. Now let me give you another just as valid reason why someone goes on welfare. A 15 year old girl who lives with her mother (who is on welfare) & her grandmother (who is on welfare). She thinks she's an adult & is tired of going to school. She know that if she gets pregnant she can collect welfare just like a lot of her friends. So she gets pregnant. It's a win win, she gets money, she can stay home, & the baby proves that she an adult. With 3 of them living in the same place they can trade or sell their food stamps for "extras" (& yes that IS done a lot too).
Maybe it happens a lot more in the south because you can get by here (a lot of places have a LCOL) very well. I do know that I was raised in Houston & saw that exact example a lot. I also know that you can "game" the system & be on it just about forever, maybe not for the same thing but still government money forever. If there were an actual END to welfare (even if it was 20 or 30 years) then some people might have an incentive to get off of it but there's not. If there were REAL requirement (like cleaning the garbage on your block) maybe people would feel better about themselves or look at things different, but there's not. The only real requirement is that every now & then you have to spend some time & thought on how to justify your next round of welfare (& that you can learn from friends, family, or standing in the welfare line.
My thoughts are that sure there should be a welfare program. It should however be well run & there should be checks & balances (no more catching 2 people collecting checks on 20 different names). No more selling food stamps (food stamps are gone but you can still buy stuff & then sell it). There should be an END to it at some point in life. Oh & if your ever caught abusing the system you should be exempt from ever being on it again. Lastly if you qualified for it because you got pregnant, you can never re-qualify by getting pregnant again (oh those poor starving children, how hard hearted that conservative is.....Thought that I would say it before someone else did).
To be honest I feel that a lot of these liberal programs that we developed to help the poor have done more harm to them than can be measured. They have pretty much killed whole generations of Americans & especially minorities. As a matter of fact I believe that there is no more raciest entity out there than the federal government because of these programs. Look what they have done to the Indians...Whole generations of a once proud people who's more or less total contribution to society (in the last 100 years) is gambling casinos. It sickens me to see the waste both in money & in humans.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 4, 2011 15:21:48 GMT -5
I also am fine with that, but when you know that people are picking up trash and scrubbing toilets, it's not fair to characterize them as lazy-layabouts sucking the golden teat. Given the miserable renumeration and harsh conditions involved, it makes it very unlikely that people dropping onto these roles are doing so voluntarily. I couldn't agree more. If they're working for their welfare they're not sponging off society, and if they're learning a trade or skills that will help them get work in future, they're being given the opportunity to become productive members of society.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 15:29:41 GMT -5
So why don't they just create jobs with the money and give people paychecks? It's not welfare when you are working for it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 4, 2011 15:36:00 GMT -5
There's so much that could be done. Our infrastructure is teetering on the edge of collapse in many areas. We could use able-bodied people to work on improving that situation. There really are a lot of things folks with little education but able and willing to work could do to earn enough to get along. I'd hope education/training could be offered at the same time. A lot of us worked and went to school simultaneously. That would provide a real road out of the mess for many of these people.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 4, 2011 15:57:28 GMT -5
Yep. That's my thinking, as well, toughtimes.
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Jun 4, 2011 20:43:27 GMT -5
it's only black ... how twisted and how sick
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 10:08:36 GMT -5
I believe that is exactly what we should do, similar to the WPA during the Depression.
That wouldn't work now (even if the country wasn't borrowing 40% of what it spends). The workers in the WPA were working to feed their families & themselves. People today know that the government will feed them no matter what so why work for low wages? Even in good times people live on the social programs in this country, so why would they bother?
It all comes down to responsibilites. Who's responsible to feed your family. It the old days, it was the parents. Now days it's the government.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 5, 2011 10:55:39 GMT -5
it's only black ... how twisted and how sick Of course, it's not only black people who are affected by this, ungenteel. I think most of us realize that and dumped that little "addition" from the title immediately. Poverty can strike anyone, even those who think they're above it all. Under the right set of circumstances, any of us could walk in these peoples' shoes. While there are, indeed, those who don't work because they don't want to work (of all skin colors), many simply can't. We have a responsibility toward those people and it doesn't bother me one bit to help take care of them.
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Jun 5, 2011 11:30:52 GMT -5
it's only black ... how twisted and how sick Of course, it's not only black people who are affected by this, ungenteel. I think most of us realize that and dumped that little "addition" from the title immediately. Poverty can strike anyone, even those who think they're above it all. Under the right set of circumstances, any of us could walk in these peoples' shoes. While there are, indeed, those who don't work because they don't want to work (of all skin colors), many simply can't. We have a responsibility toward those people and it doesn't bother me one bit to help take care of them.
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Jun 5, 2011 11:40:10 GMT -5
oldtex I really like the statment about not re-qualifying by having more kids!! I don't think anyone should get a dime more for the 3rd/4th kid. i am willing to let them get a little more for the second kid (god forbid we have a one child policy) but this should apply to ALL aid incl tax credits for children. And we have to STOP punishing married people, the lines should automatically double if you are married. If you get help at 20k if you are single you should still get help at 40k if you are married. WHY because it is much much better for the kids and society to have a two parent family and stop encouraging living together without marriage.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Jun 5, 2011 18:53:34 GMT -5
I posted my experience with my Section 8 tenant in the "Ayn Rand" thread. She had a job, but found it was "easier" to get pregnant every year or so because Section 8 would pay ALL her rent rather than a portion when she was pregnant or recently had a kid.
The libs can argue with this thread's premise all they want, but it's true. When I was a kid, my parents hired domestic help, black women as cooks and housekeepers. They were all married. Their husbands had jobs. They usually had one or two kids. But that was back in the 50's.
It all changed after Johnson's "Great Society". I'm sure it was unintentional.
Someone earlier in this thread said there was a time when there was a lot of poverty, then the wealth got redistributed, and now there's poverty again. Welcome to human nature! That's the natural course of things! Haven't they heard of the poor lottery winner who wins huge amounts of money only to be penniless in a couple of years? Or the boxer who wins huge purses only to be bankrupt within a year or two of retirement? It may be sad, but that's just the way it goes. People make choices. Some make better choices than others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 12:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 19:05:47 GMT -5
oldtex I really like the statment about not re-qualifying by having more kids!! I don't think anyone should get a dime more for the 3rd/4th kid. i am willing to let them get a little more for the second kid (god forbid we have a one child policy) but this should apply to ALL aid incl tax credits for children. And we have to STOP punishing married people, the lines should automatically double if you are married. If you get help at 20k if you are single you should still get help at 40k if you are married. WHY because it is much much better for the kids and society to have a two parent family and stop encouraging living together without marriage. I don't think they should get anything more after the 1st kid. If they have another they just have to make do with what they are getting already. Working people don't get raises when they expand their families. Why should non working people? Oh that's right they don't need to make rational financial decisions like the rest of us do.
|
|
1wisdomseeker
New Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 13:21:01 GMT -5
Posts: 36
|
Post by 1wisdomseeker on Jun 6, 2011 14:00:17 GMT -5
People generally do what gets rewarded. Reward good behavior and good things happen. Reward bad behavior and bad things happen.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 6, 2011 15:04:42 GMT -5
Welfare did not take away anyone's motivation, it just stops them from starving to death. Isn't one's desire to eat a pretty big motivator to git 'er done? For some, the very fact that someone else is feeding them is a serious factor in demotivating them.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 6, 2011 17:28:22 GMT -5
So from what I am reading,am I to believe there are plenty of jobs out there if you want one? This so called recession is all in Americans heads,all the fundementals are strong,there is no recession? Where have I heard that before?
|
|