The failure of LBJ's Great Society

[Redwingfan9]

One direct cause was the "No man in the house" rule Republicans forced into welfare legislation as a condition of passing it.

The "no man in the house" rule was deemed unconstitutional in 1968 in the US Supreme Court case King v Smith. It's not been an issue in half a century.

 

[Pommer]

In 1940 89% of black families were in poverty. By 1960 it was down to 47%. It then slowed in the 60's and 70's and now hovers around 30%. At the start of affirmative action black poverty was 30%, it dropped 1 point in 20 years.

Why did the decrease in black poverty slow? In 1960 around 75% of black children were in married homes, today 75% of black births are illegitimate and children live in one parent homes. The welfare state replaced fathers. The end result is a massive increase in black crime 45-50% of violent crime is committed by blacks, mostly against other blacks. The drug war has made those numbers worse of course by creating drug gangs that exist to feed demand for drugs but the lack of fathers in the home, their income replaced by the state, has had immeasurable negative consequences.

Minimum wage laws huet blacks, particularly teenagers. When people earn their market worth, there are fewer applicants and less competition. Minimum wage laws force below market value labor to compete with more valuable labor for jobs that are lower in number because of state action. Who does this hurt? Teenagers of all races. In black communities, the very people you don't want idle on the streets are the very ones priced out of the market by minimum wage laws.

Affirmative action has hurt blacks. It has taken kids who are capable of college work and put them in colleges a notch or two above their capabilities. They end up on academic probation, they feel inferior, they're resentful and many drop out. If they had gone to colleges they're capable of doing the work at, they would thrive.

The problem in this country isn't systematic racism. The problem is liberal do gooders who use government to further an agenda that actually hurts blacks. Slavery and the wickedness of government enforced racism (Jim Crow) couldn't destroy the black family but after two generations the liberal welfare state has decimated the black family all while claiming everyone who doesn't support their policies is a racist. The Great Society failed to do what free markets and individualism had been doing for blacks even with outrageous government blocks put in their way.

Ronald Wilson Reagan convinced Republicans that it’s cheaper to keep people subjugated to debt than it would be for the Government to make sure that the playing field is as level as possible for EVERYONE.
Forty years of that kind of “thinking” and here we are!

 

[Pommer]

The average person in poverty in America has a grab bag of luxuries ranging from cars, tv's and smart phones to refrigerators, running water, air conditioning and central heating.

“They’re ‘not as poor as they could be’” might not be your best argument.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Ronald Wilson Reagan convinced Republicans that it’s cheaper to keep people subjugated to debt than it would be for the Government to make sure that the playing field is as level as possible for EVERYONE.
Forty years of that kind of “thinking” and here we are!

Reagan has nothing to do with the expansion of debt in society, that is a product of the Federal Reserve and its refusal to increase interest rates.

Government cannot guarantee equality of outcomes. It cannot tax others into poverty to make the poor rich. It doesn't work that way. All welfare does is keep people dependent on the state to sustain their lifestyles. Whether their lifestyles are degenerate or harmful ot society is of no concern to the bureaucracy. Thus we see massive illegitimacy in all groups thanks to welfare, we see horrible crime rates in black communities that didn't exist 50 years ago.

Everyone has an opportunity for success in America, including the very poor. That doesn't mean they take advantage of opportunities and it doesn't mean they will actually be successful. I had just as much opportunity to play baseball as Derek Jeter growing up but I lacked the talent to achieve what he did.

 

[Redwingfan9]

“They’re ‘not as poor as they could be’” might not be your best argument.

It's actually a very good argument because it forces me and everyone else to take a step back and look at world history and how different the US and the west is from the overwhelming majority of humans since creation. We have untold wealth and opportunity, all of which we're decadently tearing down for no particular reason. If we take a step back, it forces us to recognize how well off the allegedly poor in America really are.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Percentage of persons below the poverty line by race (and state) can be found here. It's interesting to look at variance among states.

 

[Speedwell]

The "no man in the house" rule was deemed unconstitutional in 1968 in the US Supreme Court case King v Smith. It's not been an issue in half a century.

But was an issue while it lasted and helped establish an unfortunate trend which has, of course, other causes.

 

[Speedwell]

Everyone has an opportunity for success in America, including the very poor.

But not an equal opportunity; that is the point.

 

[Redwingfan9]

But was an issue while it lasted and helped establish an unfortunate trend which has, of course, other causes.

It was an issue for what, 3 years after the Great Society was passed? Come on, it was ruled unconstitutional 52 years ago.

 

[Redwingfan9]

But not an equal opportunity; that is the point.

You can never guarantee equal opportunities to all people. People who are born in the inner city are not going to have an equal opportunity to learn farming or husbandry compared to kids from rural areas. Likewise, kids in rural communities are unlikely to have opportunities to participate in high culture. The list of possible missed opportunities for people in all groups, in all regions of the country are endless.

 

[Speedwell]

You can never guarantee equal opportunities to all people. People who are born in the inner city are not going to have an equal opportunity to learn farming or husbandry compared to kids from rural areas. Likewise, kids in rural communities are unlikely to have opportunities to participate in high culture. The list of possible missed opportunities for people in all groups, in all regions of the country are endless.

Yes, but all people from the inner city should have an equal opportunity for education and a job; all people from rural communities likewise. When there are inequalities in opportunity due to race, gender or ethnicity then there is a problem.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Yes, but all people from the inner city should have an equal opportunity for education and a job; all people from rural communities likewise. When there are inequalities in opportunity due to race, gender or ethnicity then there is a problem.

They do have opportunities for education, unfortunately for many families it isn't a priority. For those who it is a priority, Democrats are trying to eliminate charter schools which have largely been a success for blacks and other poor people.

This goes back though to the welfare state problem. When men aren't in the home because welfare makes it more lucrative to get rid of them and when the war on drugs jails a substantial number of men, it's difficult to raise children in a stable environment that focuses on education.

Jews came to America discriminated against left and right. They came here largely very poor. In a generation they rose up from poverty. Why? Because they raised their kids in two parent homes and focused on education. It doesn't matter how bad a school is, kids will thrive when both parents push them to study. Likewise when education isn't important to parents a good school will only take a kid so far.

 

[istodolez]

What is poverty though?

Really?

The people we claim live in poverty have goods and lifestyles that are upper middle and upper class

So it's pretty good. YOU would be fine living in "American poverty".

Claiming people opposed to welfare don't CARE about the poor is not an argument.

If people who fight against welfare improvements actually DO care for the poor, what are they doing to ensure systemic poverty is not a problem? Don't say "charity" because charity is great but not as effective as broad-based society wide initiatives. (HERE)

Such only seeks to turn the issue into one driven by emotions rather than facts

Let me know when Conservative arguments against welfare actually rely on facts. Then we can talk I guess.

If you want to care about other people you don't make them dependent on the state for support. You encourage them to live Godly lifestyles

You mean like Donald J. Trump's lifestyle? How many porn stars does a "godly" man get to have sex with behind his wife's back while she takes care of his latest child? How many times does the godly man get to treat the sacrament of marriage like a urinal?

You teach self sufficiency. For those truly destitute in the church, of which there are few in America if we are honest, then the deacons should provide very basic help. Charity in scripture isn't a government function, it is a voluntary action by Christians and charged to the church.

As noted earlier: charity while great is not a substitute. It can't meet all the needs. (There's also a significant argument from the Old Testament that charitable behavior is a social mandate per the various rules for the Israelites in regards to the poor and the foreigner...but that's a whole 'nother discussion)

 

[istodolez]

This goes back though to the welfare state problem. When men aren't in the home because welfare makes it more lucrative to get rid of them and when the war on drugs jails a substantial number of men, it's difficult to raise children in a stable environment that focuses on education.

We DEFINITELY need to end this charade of the "war on drugs" and we need to eliminate the mass incarceration of black men ("The New Jim Crow" prison pipeline). And we need to ensure justice is blind, even to how much money one has for a robust defense.

Jews came to America discriminated against left and right. They came here largely very poor. In a generation they rose up from poverty. Why? Because they raised their kids in two parent homes and focused on education. It doesn't matter how bad a school is, kids will thrive when both parents push them to study. Likewise when education isn't important to parents a good school will only take a kid so far.

Ahhh, the "model minority" argument. So refreshing.

 

[DaisyDay]

The problem in this country isn't systematic racism.

I don't know if systemic (rather than systematic) racism is "the" problem in this country, but it certainly is and has been a major one.

The problem is liberal do gooders who use government to further an agenda that actually hurts blacks.

The agenda of equality, liberty and justice for all is not limited to liberal do-gooders.

Slavery and the wickedness of government enforced racism (Jim Crow) couldn't destroy the black family but after two generations the liberal welfare state has decimated the black family all while claiming everyone who doesn't support their policies is a racist.

Mass incarceration of black men has also decimated the families, probably to much, much worse effect than a holey safety net. In NYC, the Stop and Frisk initiative jailed minority men and boys for minor offenses that white guys were rarely charged with. That also knocked them out of the running for Pell grants and public housing. For instance, it was not illegal to possess minor amounts of marijuana as long as it wasn't public, but the S&F stops would require people minding their own business to empty their pockets so what was private became public and actionable.

The Great Society failed to do what free markets and individualism had been doing for blacks even with outrageous government blocks put in their way.

Free markets are a myth. Any decent market is well regulated to stave off thieves, cartels and monopolists.

 

[Speedwell]

We DEFINITELY need to end this charade of the "war on drugs" and we need to eliminate the mass incarceration of black men ("The New Jim Crow" prison pipeline). And we need to ensure justice is blind, even to how much money one has for a robust defense.



Ahhh, the "model minority" argument. So refreshing.

I also like the "Charter schools solve the problem of unequal educational opportunities for the poor but Democrats are against them" argument. It's a corollary to the "Democrats want state-dependent poor people for their votes" theme. But as much fun as it is listening to the oldies but goodies, I think Conservatives really do need some new material.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Really?



So it's pretty good. YOU would be fine living in "American poverty".



If people who fight against welfare improvements actually DO care for the poor, what are they doing to ensure systemic poverty is not a problem? Don't say "charity" because charity is great but not as effective as broad-based society wide initiatives. (HERE)



Let me know when Conservative arguments against welfare actually rely on facts. Then we can talk I guess.



You mean like Donald J. Trump's lifestyle? How many porn stars does a "godly" man get to have sex with behind his wife's back while she takes care of his latest child? How many times does the godly man get to treat the sacrament of marriage like a urinal?



As noted earlier: charity while great is not a substitute. It can't meet all the needs. (There's also a significant argument from the Old Testament that charitable behavior is a social mandate per the various rules for the Israelites in regards to the poor and the foreigner...but that's a whole 'nother discussion)

The only one taling about Donald Trump is you.

God only gives authority to the state to do certain things. Tax from producers to give to those who do not produce is not one of those functions. God has left caring for the poor to the church and to voluntary charity. Somehow that managed to work out just fine for centuries before we decided that people with cars, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, tv's and and smart phones were "poor" but only in comparison with their neighbors.

Systematic poverty has been ensured by the welfare state, which incentivizes degenerate behavior and sloth. It has guaranteed the poor live in crime infested neighborhoods because it has eliminated men from homes and priced teenage boys out of the labor market. I would submit less government would go a long way in ending systematic poverty.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I don't know if systemic (rather than systematic) racism is "the" problem in this country, but it certainly is and has been a major one.

The agenda of equality, liberty and justice for all is not limited to liberal do-gooders.

Mass incarceration of black men has also decimated the families, probably to much, much worse effect than a holey safety net. In NYC, the Stop and Frisk initiative jailed minority men and boys for minor offenses that white guys were rarely charged with. That also knocked them out of the running for Pell grants and public housing. For instance, it was not illegal to possess minor amounts of marijuana as long as it wasn't public, but the S&F stops would require people minding their own business to empty their pockets so what was private became public and actionable.

Free markets are a myth. Any decent market is well regulated to stave off thieves, cartels and monopolists.

The idea that there is no such thing as a free market has no facts backing it up. In reality, contracts have always been enforced by the state going back to Biblical times. It's one of the few powers given to the state by God. Outside of only the very basic limitations, such as being required to use just weights and measures, markets have been free. I choose to buy a widget from you for $5. That is a free exchange on our part and as long as I pay a legitimate $5 and you provide me a widget, the transaction is unregulated and totally voluntary.

 

[bèlla]

Jews came to America discriminated against left and right. They came here largely very poor. In a generation they rose up from poverty. Why? Because they raised their kids in two parent homes and focused on education.

As a woman of color with Jewish ancestry there’s a lot missing in that statement. It wasn’t wholly due to two-parent homes. It was their work ethic and emphasis on excellence that made a difference.

Jews are very communal and willing to extend themselves for loved ones and fellow Jews. The ‘Jewish mother’ trope exists for a reason. I won’t call her a tiger mom but she isn’t far off. They’re very hands-on.

Jewish parents don’t see sports as an avenue for success. Education is important. You’re encouraged to pursue a professional career or entrepreneurship.

Of course differences exist. But I’ve seen that thread in my life and other Jews. Welfare wasn’t an option. Achievement was expected. Success is celebrated. Wealth is normative. Legacy is commonplace. It’s a different mindset.

Some African-Americans have similar ideals. Its most prevalent in the upper class. Read Our Kind of People and Negroland for a different perspective.

~Bella

 

[Speedwell]

The only one taling about Donald Trump is you.

God only gives authority to the state to do certain things. Tax from producers to give to those who do not produce is not one of those functions. God has left caring for the poor to the church and to voluntary charity. Somehow that managed to work out just fine for centuries before we decided that people with cars, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, tv's and and smart phones were "poor" but only in comparison with their neighbors.

Systematic poverty has been ensured by the welfare state, which incentivizes degenerate behavior and sloth. It has guaranteed the poor live in crime infested neighborhoods because it has eliminated men from homes and priced teenage boys out of the labor market. I would submit less government would go a long way in ending systematic poverty.

Classic. But it is "We, the people..." who have authority over this state, not your God.