The failure of LBJ's Great Society

[Arcangl86]

Remind me what Obama did about any of that when he was President.

I have a whole post about criminal justice things Obama did. Look at post #134.

 

[istodolez]

You know in all that ramble you never offered any
solutions other than "we gotta give people stuff".

I've written out so many "solutions" in this and other threads on this topic it gets tiring. I don't have to give you solutions EVERY SINGLE TIME I SPEAK.

The point here being: America needs an exapanded welfare system but also systematic changes to ensure that more Americans are not driven into poverty.

Ensure universal access to affordable healthcare
Improve public education (more funding, better pay for teachers --less focus on bloated administration)
Reduce the School-->Prison Pipeline
Eliminate mandatory sentencing
Eliminate laws allowing DA's strong arm plea deals
Beef up EEO enforcement to ensure bias is limited in hiring practices

(That's just off the top of my head.)

I've worked with the poor for 35 years and I have had family that was in welfare. So I know exactly what it's like and who is on it.

And of all the people you worked with and your family how many of them wanted to STAY on it because it was sooo cool to sponge off "tha man"? Seriously. YOU have worked with the people most affected by this: how many LOVE being on welfare because it's "free money"?

At no point have I simply said "let's give everyone more free stuff" as a solution. So you can drop that line of representation of my point. But America lags almost all developed nations in how we share the "commonwealth". We have staggering levels of poverty in this country considering we are one of the richest on earth. And the single biggest thing I hear from Conservatives is this assumption that welfare is somehow being "gamed" by vast swaths of recipients. I will assume YOUR FAMILY was not one of them...but that's because I'm not a Conservative.

My family got off welfare not because welfare helped them.

Welfare isn't there to help you get off welfare. Welfare is there to help you when you have no other options. And, again, most Americans are not lazy leech-slugs who simply want to steal free stuff from good honest people. MOST Americans want to work. WANT to have a better life.

They could have stayed on it for a very long time if they would not have chosen to

Because it was such a great life? Is that what you are saying?

The majority of the poor in America are poor due to bad decision making.

What bad decisions did your family make?

And here's a fun fact: the zip code you were born and raised in correlates strongly with where you end up economically later in life. So by your reasoning some of these people simply made the bad decision to be born into the wrong zip code.

So, again, what BAD DECISIONS did YOUR family make to wind them up needing welfare?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I don't remember if you addressed this or not, but how do you see the Democratic party benefiting at the expense of black people. As a white person all I can say is what I think from observations. But as a black man you have a unique perspective and I would love to hear it. Thank you.

Have you ever watched the movie "The Village"? If not, i would be happy to talk to you off line so I don't spoil anything. But for now, I would check out Candace Owen's and her "Blexit" movement.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Like food? Yeah, I'm a sucker like that. I like to see people in my community NOT starving.



Why is the idea of helping other Americans so scary? I've always been curious about that.



There's your problem. So many on the Right see nothing but people trying to take from them. People on welfare are SCARY because they are possibly trying to get something from the good Conservatives who pay their taxes. There are SO MANY bad Americans in their view that are trying to scam them for a penny.



And pulling out wholesale from public education leaving inner city schools to rot with insufficient funding followed by massive overpolicing and OVERSENTENCING for crimes ensuring that more young black men become felons and thereby limiting their future prospects is the best way to do that?



No it doesn't. Are you currently living on welfare? Is it a "good life"? Do you enjoy it? In my >half a century on this planet I've never met someone who likes living on such little money and in squalor.

Nope, nope, and nope. Everything you said is one big bag of nopes.

 

[istodolez]

Nope, nope, and nope. Everything you said is one big bag of nopes.

I appreciate your insight. A wealth of knowledge. A fount of inspiration and teaching.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less what you think about my post. I hope that doesn't make you feel bad or anything.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I have a whole post about criminal justice things Obama did. Look at post #134.

You essentially cited nothing. A few meaningless consent decrees, which are entered in Court as orders and cannot be reversed by subsequent administrations, doesn't equal anything substantive. In fact, Obama never pushed for any meaningful legislation regarding police or criminal justice. Trump has actually gotten some minimal criminal justice reform legislation passed. He would have even more if Senate Democrats didn't filibuster Sen. Scott's bill because they couldn't stand having a black Republican score a victory.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I appreciate your insight. A wealth of knowledge. A fount of inspiration and teaching.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less what you think about my post. I hope that doesn't make you feel bad or anything.

No problem. There was just so much wrong about your post that I would have to spend hours untangling and dissecting everything wrong with it. The thought of articulating all the falsehoods seemed only to be a waste of both my time and yours because I do not think you would be receptive about understanding the conservative point of view. Seeing how you "couldn't care less" about what I think, I think my assessment was accurate. Just know that conservatives are not the bad people you believe us to be. We both want the same things. We both want to help the poor, protect the environment, ect... but we just have different ideas about how to achieve the same goals. Perhaps if you did care more about what conservatives think you would be able to at least come to an understanding even if you don't agree.

 

[istodolez]

No problem. There was just so much wrong about your post that I would have to spend hours untangling

Whatever excuse you need to make. I understand.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You essentially cited nothing. A few meaningless consent decrees, which are entered in Court as orders and cannot be reversed by subsequent administrations, doesn't equal anything substantive. In fact, Obama never pushed for any meaningful legislation regarding police or criminal justice. Trump has actually gotten some minimal criminal justice reform legislation passed. He would have even more if Senate Democrats didn't filibuster Sen. Scott's bill because they couldn't stand having a black Republican score a victory.

Obama did invite a cop to the White House for a beer after he told the world he "acted stupidly".

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Whatever excuse you need to make. I understand.

No worries. But just out of curiosity, if you don't care about what others say, why should anyone care about what you have to say?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Obama did invite a cop to the White House for a beer after he told the world he "acted stupidly".

That's the extent of Obama's acts as President. Michael Brown, Freddie Grey, Eric Garner, those incidents all happened during his administration and he did nothing other than grouse from the Oval Office. He didn't make any substantive proposals, he didn't push Democrat city governments and police departments to make changes, he did nothing.

That's ultimately what makes the Dems riots so completely disingenuous. They've controlled these cities for decades and did nothing. When they sat in the White House they did nothing. Their policies set this stuff up, welfare, minimum wages and drug laws all hurt black families, keep teen boys unemployed and create drug gang violence.

 

[istodolez]

No worries. But just out of curiosity, if you don't care about what others say, why should anyone care about what you have to say?

First off: your comment was completely without any value. You just said "Nope, nope, nope".

That isn't a valuable comment. So why would I care about it????

But as to the value of my points: I don't think should care unless they verify! But to my credit I actually attempt to engage in the conversation and limit my valueless comments like "Nope, nope, nope" to a minimum.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

First off: your comment was completely without any value. You just said "Nope, nope, nope".

That isn't a valuable comment. So why would I care about it????

But as to the value of my points: I don't think should care unless they verify! But to my credit I actually attempt to engage in the conversation and limit my valueless comments like "Nope, nope, nope" to a minimum.

Some would argue that an emotional outburst void of any facts to be just as valuable as "Nope".

 

[istodolez]

Some would argue that an emotional outburst void of any facts to be just as valuable as "Nope".

If you have a valid point to make please get to it. I'm getting bored.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If you have a valid point to make please get to it. I'm getting bored.

Okay...let's make this simple by focusing on one small statement you made. You said:

Like food? Yeah, I'm a sucker like that. I like to see people in my community NOT starving.

This emotional outburst seems to suggest that you believe the only way to help the hungry is to give them food. Is that correct?

 

[Dryskale]

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.

poverty rates have stagnated amongst all demographics or have increased.

Why did the decrease in black poverty slow?

Same reason is slowed for all demographics. Wealth pooling made mobility stagnate due to credit replacing wage increases. It's a capital corner Stone to use means that generates money based on interest.

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.

This is due to a lot of factors. Over policing and "cracking Down" on crime has resulted in removing black individuals from families and making employment harder to obtain above minimum wage levels. This leads to homes needing more resources. Wage stagnation tempts people to sell drugs or utilize other means of income to make ends met or to thrive. The downfall is that it tends to breed high risk and dangerous environments.

The welfare state replaced fathers.

Then why aren't the number equivalent by capital in other demographics?

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

Then it's more reasonable to end the drug war and reform drug policy to bring down the violent crime rate. This is the problem with highly unregulated markets without a judicial system to air grievances and address contracts. Black Markets cause massive amount of problems.

but the lack of fathers in the home, their income replaced by the state, has had immeasurable negative consequences.

You have not established that welfare replaced fathers. Men can also qualify for food stamps, rent assistance, heat/electric assistance, and Medicaid. The larger issue seems to be judicial and a large black Market system that is used to make up for massive failures on the system. The market tends to fill in for needs. Right now it's hard for the general market to compete with an unregulated, highly lucrative market of sex and drug. We need to reform and bring these markets back into the main fold.

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.

Then this should be easily demonstrable across demographics. What is seen more is that companies like McDonalds and Walmart tend to roll multiples jobs into a single unit and have skeleton crews work multiple positions to minimize costs. Lowering or abolishing the minimum wage without strong union backing for the workers would just race wages to the bottom.

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.

Its actually the opposite. Minimal standards means that black americans tends to be accepted to the minimum then the rest of the spots tend to be filled by other demographics.

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 here is that affirmative action doesnt take lower qualified blacks and push them to higher schools by any significan standard. AA also applies based on applicants. The schools cant invent applicants so schools tend to market themselves to applicants.

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.

You didnt demonstrate any of that though. Systemic racism includes segregation, slavery, red lining, and over policing. Adequate measures have not been taken to rectify these issues and have resulted in a very high bar demanded of african americans while also causing a negative feedback loop. Several policies help to reinforce problems within the black community but the "Freedom" of the market hasn't been demonstrated to be the cause. What would you say is preventing black entrepreneurship that couldn't also be extrapolated to other demographics.

 

[rjs330]

I've written out so many "solutions" in this and other threads on this topic it gets tiring. I don't have to give you solutions EVERY SINGLE TIME I SPEAK.

The point here being: America needs an exapanded welfare system but also systematic changes to ensure that more Americans are not driven into poverty.

Ensure universal access to affordable healthcare
Improve public education (more funding, better pay for teachers --less focus on bloated administration)
Reduce the School-->Prison Pipeline
Eliminate mandatory sentencing
Eliminate laws allowing DA's strong arm plea deals
Beef up EEO enforcement to ensure bias is limited in hiring practices

(That's just off the top of my head.)



And of all the people you worked with and your family how many of them wanted to STAY on it because it was sooo cool to sponge off "tha man"? Seriously. YOU have worked with the people most affected by this: how many LOVE being on welfare because it's "free money"?

At no point have I simply said "let's give everyone more free stuff" as a solution. So you can drop that line of representation of my point. But America lags almost all developed nations in how we share the "commonwealth". We have staggering levels of poverty in this country considering we are one of the richest on earth. And the single biggest thing I hear from Conservatives is this assumption that welfare is somehow being "gamed" by vast swaths of recipients. I will assume YOUR FAMILY was not one of them...but that's because I'm not a Conservative.



Welfare isn't there to help you get off welfare. Welfare is there to help you when you have no other options. And, again, most Americans are not lazy leech-slugs who simply want to steal free stuff from good honest people. MOST Americans want to work. WANT to have a better life.



Because it was such a great life? Is that what you are saying?



What bad decisions did your family make?

And here's a fun fact: the zip code you were born and raised in correlates strongly with where you end up economically later in life. So by your reasoning some of these people simply made the bad decision to be born into the wrong zip code.

So, again, what BAD DECISIONS did YOUR family make to wind them up needing welfare?

No one loves to be on welfare. What's that got to do with anything?

It's WHY you are on welfare that matters and WHY you remain on welfare. Americans are NOT poor. The majority of poor in America are rich compaired to the rest of the world.

You know we've tried to improve education and the only thing that actually worked the left wants no part of. I wonder why?

Expanding the welfare IS giving people stuff. You said it yourself when you poo poo'd my ideas.

I get affordable healthcare is needed. We all need it! But I don't know how it specifically raises someone out of poverty. It is rare that they are poor cause they can't pay their medical bills. I know it does happen, but it's rare.

Paying teachers more won't fix the issue either. Most schools are bad because the teachers are terrible. Most are bad because the kids don't care.

And sharing the common wealth is a Marxist idea. Totally opposite of the freedom to earn your own money and keep what you earn, give what you want and where you want and how you want. But it is a balancing act in a representative government, because the founders were concern d that the folks would figure out that they could vote themselves other people's money. And guess what we do.

I dont believe in mandatory sentencing. But I would like to see fair sentencing. If two people have committed the exact same crime and have the exact same criminal history they should suffer the same consequences. For most things that IS the case in America.

Walter Olson: Is It Really an In-Justice System?

I don't know how changing mandatory sentencing gets non criminals off if welfare.

 

[Dryskale]

It's WHY you are on welfare that matters and WHY you remain on welfare. Americans are NOT poor. The majority of poor in America are rich compaired to the rest of the world.

I'm of a position that the entire idea of welfare in the United states tends to be a largely negative thing when it should be seen as infrastructure investment.

You know we've tried to improve education and the only thing that actually worked the left wants no part of. I wonder why?

I would like to know what specifically you are talking about. I know many leftists want to reform education spending to be divided from property taxes and to bring more critical thinking exercises into earlier grades.

I get affordable healthcare is needed. We all need it! But I don't know how it specifically raises someone out of poverty. It is rare that they are poor cause they can't pay their medical bills. I know it does happen, but it's rare.

I'd say stabilizing health costs will go towards improving quality of life in this country.

Paying teachers more won't fix the issue either. Most schools are bad because the teachers are terrible. Most are bad because the kids don't care.

I think we need to address what is making the tea hers terrible and see what can be done to improve that.

And sharing the common wealth is a Marxist idea. Totally opposite of the freedom to earn your own money and keep what you earn, give what you want and where you want and how you want.

This is a great misunderstanding on what Marxism actually is. Marx was all for people keeping the fruits of their labour and about abolishing the hierarchies that reinforce that. Many people confuse Marxiam with various socialist ideas. Socialism predates Marx and Marx focuses more about critiquing the failures and shortcomings of capitalism. Marx was very much about abolishing states and about reinforcing community structures through ownership of the means of production being owned by the workers that worked directly with the said production.

But it is a balancing act in a representative government, because the founders were concern d that the folks would figure out that they could vote themselves other people's money. And guess what we do. Marx did have many critiques on what it meant to be free and economics as a whole, but many people seem to think Marx = Lenin when Lenin, Mao, etc were more about trying to figure out how to achieve a Marxist society.

[QuoteI don't know how changing mandatory sentencing gets non criminals off if welfare.[/QUOTE] The problem is that Mandatoey sentencing labels people with criminal records that impact warning potential which contributes to one's chance of falling into us standards of poverty.

 

[jgarden]

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.

"Redwingfan9" has confused "coincidence" with "causality" - America has less than 5% of the world's population but 25% of its prisoners, a disproportionate number of them "black!"

Instead of pouring vast sums into their military, other modern democracies have reinvested in their cities and targeted the poorer segments of society, avoiding the kinds of problems that America has created!

With government policies that promoted the upward concentration of private wealth into the hands of fewer Americans, starting with the Reagan Administration, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs helped decimate the middle and working classes, while the relative incomes of most workers has either declined or remained stagnant!

These economic pressures resulted to growth of 2 wage earning families as an attempt to maintain the same standard of living that one wage earner had been able to provide decades earlier!