RLLD

At least you are trying to now talk forthrightly about it. So now we are down to sourcing. We both have "substantiation" to support our positions. I think your assertion that is mostly opinion pieces ignores that they are all sourced, and also ignores the non-opinion pieces I sourced. But there are plenty more, so I will provide. For now I want to digest what you have generously provided.

Drugs/incarceration are a symptom of the problem. Fix the problem and you improve these areas as well. There is no forcing. Are we presently "forcing" single-parent home? Using your logic? I think not. We are incentivizing it. And since we can see the positive impact of a two=parent home, lets incentivize that instead.

I think we agree on far more than we disagree.

Glad we found common groud.

BLM professes to be Marxist. Now Marx himself was devoted to the breaking down of delineations he saw as pointless. He saw carpeters in Germany killing carpenters in France and he postulated....why? You guys are carpenters. And that is more important than some governmental line in the sand. The people making you fight sure arent out there killing each other...... So Marx was a globalist. He wanted class to be the delineation, gobally. Now modern liberals embracing Marxism ususally refer to this as "ugly marxism" because of the abscence of intersectionality. This is BLM. Taking what was once a reasonable and useful approach. and poisoning it.

Make one...... really..... lets create one. If that is what it takes. The rest will follow.

I think we have already observed some harm. From Riley Gaines to that poor young girl raped in Virginia. Men do not belong in womens spaces, spaces set aside for them to enjoy success. Men entering womens spaces are taking away their hard work and opportunities. Its unacceptable.

Almost. We are already paying women to have children out of wedlock. So if we agree that a two-parent solution is superior, then lets create a further incentive for two-parent homes. I assure you we see two-parent situations soar.....and with it the prosperity of lower income people, everywhere,.....but more pointedly in the AA community.

My assertion is that conservatives have the better solutions, and the liberal solutions have already emphatically demonstrated they do not work. Part of my delight with Mr. Trump was his apparent outcome to employ AA's at high rates, I was absolutely excited by the benefit that part could do alone.... So I think the move here should be to continue welfare support, and you know what, keep helping single mothers by all means, but make it more profitable to have a two-parent situation. How about we start with that?

Rather than incentivize the absence of fathers, incentivize their presence. How about we start with that? Seem like a place where you and I can agree? If government is to be involved, how about we do smart things and not stupid ones....

I am saying protect them from groomers.....and transexuals.....and predators.....and rapists..... and anyone else who introduces harm to them. I thnk we can agree to agree on this point

And yet, I can (and have) provided sourcing for that assertion. Yet, all you have is....."well, you're stupid".......not exactly a response....is it?

No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying protect them, all of them. I am saying that when men emplor actions that are pointedly negative toward females, that we protect those femles.... no qualification.

But.... I AM saying.....to fix those things....that is core to my assertion. Government needs to get the fock out of the way, stop hurting these people. AND.....we need to fix it....that means starting with the family, as I have said...over....and over.... and over...... culture is the umbrella statement to this. We start at the family level........we help the parents do their job, we wring out all of the cultural decay.....we fix this at the grass roots... Now, that is part of it. We cannot ignore the people that have already been harmed, are entering high school and beyond. They need some help as well. But the elements celebrated by AA culture are not helping, they are hurting....

Correct. This thread is not about wages, but failed policies that have ruined the AA culture to the extent that it seems incapable of correcting itself without considerable help. The original intent of the policy was to ensure AA fathers were working, seems odd right? Why would Democrats think AA men would not work? And moreover, the incentive was strong. The estimateis that in 1975 a household head would have to earn $20,000 a year to have more resources than what could be obtained from Great Society programs. In today’s dollars, that’s over $90,000 per year in earnings. Hey, that is great, single moms rejoice....but what was the cost? I think we now know.... That may be a reason why, in 1964, only 7% of American children were born out of wedlock, compared to 40% today. Jason Riley has noted, “the government paid mothers to keep fathers out of the home—and paid them well.” None of this is unknown, its not that complex.

Not sure how better to explain this.......AA culture was good.......government inserted itself......AA culture was damaged and has not recovered, mostly DUE TO GOVERNMENT...... So lets get a little deeper in the weeds on this then. Perhaps with some additional facts and reading. This is not a new or surprising element.... Only 9% of children were raised without their father in 1960, yet today a quarter of American kids are raised without their father. Family breakdown fuels poverty. On average, even high school dropouts who are married have a far lower poverty rate than do single parents with several years of college. Raj Chetty has shown us that the presence of fathers in the neighborhood is likely the key factor in predicting upward income mobility for the children in that neighborhood later in life, even when controlling for other variables such as the available schools, race, or ethnicity. boys raised without their father are much more likely to use drugs, engage in violent or criminal behavior, go to jail, and drop out of school; girls, meanwhile, are more likely to engage in early sexual activity or have a child out of wedlock. Children without a father in the home are even more likely to suffer from mental health problems as adults. Autor and Figlio studied and rejected the idea that these effects are mainly due to dangerous neighborhoods or poor schools. They concluded that “neighborhoods and schools are less important than the ‘direct effect of family structure itself. It is important to realize that things weren’t always so. The black American family provides a stark example. From 1890 to 1950, black women had a higher marriage rate than white women. And in 1950, just 9% of black children lived without their father. By 1960, the black marriage rate had declined but remained close to the white marriage rate. In other words, despite open racism and widespread poverty, strong black families used to be the norm. But by the mid-1980s, black fatherlessness skyrocketed. Today, only 44% of black children have a father in the home. In unison, the rate of black out-of-wedlock births went from 24.5% in 1964 to 70.7% by 1994, roughly where it stands today. Why? In large part because the government fomented anti-marriage policies This has been documented over and over....

The damage caused by Democrats is the cause of the cultural decay. It is not as if people woke up one day and said " you know what, we are making headway here....but fock it, lets abandon our progress and potential....." That did not happen. What happened was government, specifically Democrats, who swung in and methodically ruined a strong and robust culture.

How is paying a young woman who had a child more money to NOT have a man in the home, making anything equal? Notably for the child?

unpossible....Mayorkas has already told us the border is secure, and Biden will call you a racist if you keep it up..... I picture Democrats as being Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House.....

Leave Hunter Biden out of this

In the 1960's the AA culture was blossoming. Until it was hit by forces outside of its control. There are so many examples; from the Black Panther Breakfast Program to Freedom Summer in Mississippi to the Student Organization for Black Unity. These groups were all negatively impacted by government-centric actions, and what splintered off as a result was not good..... the LA gangs can trace their roots to the government destruction of the Black Panthers.... So much was going so well, and then government, mostly Democrats, moved in and took action.....the results are plainly evident. They really harmed the culture, a harm that persists to this day. Fix the culture, fix the family....and you fix the problem.

There is never really any attempt to hide it. I mean, they do it this unabashedly.....its remarkable....

So then....there is an acuser (or say, a whistlebloewr) and then we have some messages (like, emails and bank statements) suggesting this guy is potentially some kind of sexual predator?

Thats fine, and absolutely on point. They were not "there" yet, it was going well and progress was transpiring.....but it was not sustained. That is more of the point I am making. If it were true that we then see this same impact across the board, across lower incomes then we can work the problem from a class-centric approach (Marxist) if instead we decide that well, its happening because of the skin color of those impacted then we are working from another angle entirely. Now if we can agree that skin color is not the cause, and its something else, then we are back to culture. One of the more important "tells" here is that immigrants from Africa seem to avoid this spectral racism that is magically holding people back. Why could that be happening? Because they do not carry the cultural baggage..... Its not the color of their skin, its not genetic, its not white people being mean.......its a cultural malignancy....

Perhaps we could find common ground here. Based on the outcomes, would it not be suitable to assert there is a "systemic" problem likely behind this?