RLLD

Ewwww, that guy always rubbed me the wrong way. He reminds me too much of like Joy Ried or Rachel Maddow.....

I cannot prove intent. We can never know for sure what is behind the actions. I can only look at the outcomes of the actions, and then I am left with some conclusions. 1) The Democrats remain the enemy of minorities they have always been, but now hide behing a veil of compassion. 2) The Democrats and their policies are simply flawed, the premise of liberalism when not constrained is destructive because it assumes a human condition that is not real. 3) The Democrats care only about power and how to secure it. They will do what ever it takes in a machiovellian pursuit of power, to include lying about their intentions and subsequently feeding into what ever current event further secures that power, regardless of who is hurt.

Allow me to expound. I can point to several policy implementations in the last 30 years alone to which there is universal agreement were pointedly harmful to the AA community. If someone tells you they love you, care about you....will do anything for you....but constantly punches you in the face, when do you stop beleiving their words. How hard do they have to hurt you before you pause and ask yourself what exactly is going on here?

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was the fullfillment of Clinton's campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it". The Republicans tried to upstage him by putting forth their own competing bills, which Clinton promptly vetoed. Clinton brough Gingerich in to debate with him about it all. Clinton was the architect, the driver and the decider on what would happen. IT was HE who pushed it through. I am not surprised you are unware of this. I would further note that people also now accept how destructive the Democrat-driven (and Biden led) The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was..... how much do they have to do, before people see it....I wonder.....

I think we agree. Can you recall who implemented Jim Crow? And you understand who it was the implemented the "seperate but equal" and also were discriminatory in their provision of welfare for decades? Democrats have harmed the AA community for decades and decades, and continue to do so...... I make this point because it is rather common to deflect this fact away and instead assign blame elsewhere. Who is benefitting from ignoring this simple fact and who is suffering? If you want to understand people and their motivations, look at who wins and who loses in a scenario.....

Yes, Democrats have long pushed for more govt assistance and welfare, and Republicans have opposed. That's how we got welfare with restrictions, like "Man in House", which was a concession to republicans for allowing some sort of welfare. False. Source Don't be a child and say "Well why allow that" because I know you understand politics better than to make such a dumb statement. I know you understand concessions and how partisan politics work. And don't try and say that conservatives want to give more hand out than liberals, no one is buying that either. Standard ad hominem, predictable. So you are then agreeing with me that it was a bad idea.....driven by Democrats, but you want to pretend it was Republicans....ok..... you know what, if that matters so much to you......I will tell you what, I will go do far as to actually concede this point....since it has no bearing at all on the facts.... how about that? Also there was a huge welfare reform in the 90s, driven by republicans, that further limited who receives welfare. False. Source Not sure if you fully read this article, probably the best one that refutes everything you are saying: https://newrepublic.com/article/136200/racist-roots-welfare-reform The link does not refute my position in any way. In fact, it does one thing that I find fascinating....the impugning of Bill Clintons move to reform welfare and apparently the author does not like that one at all, and pretended it was a Republican-led effort, when in fact those cowards had to be brown-beaten into it...ohm, that is focking hilarious....now I find the entire source to be suspect.

Agree....or the petulent children that just throw out .."well, you're stupid"..... thats tiresome as well...

Back to the "you're stupid" approach when you are shown to be wrong. I anticipated that move, since it sorta defines you, which is why I took the time to post the specific elements for you....from your sources..... Now. Democrats drove those policies, if there was a problem with the policy.....why did they push it? Moreover, now that we can see those policies are a problem.....why no move to fix it? So if you are correct, lets pretend that Democrats disagreed with something proposed by conservatives (even though that is proveably false), then you are also allowing that the Democrats willingly harmed them.....and allowed that harm to continue, even as they clearly suffered from it. Moreover, you are then asserting that they are presently armed with this awareness....and doing nothing to fix it.....

Interesting. I do not want to apply something you are not saying, so I want to pause for clarification. You see the broken homes as symptom of other elements, notably drugs and crime? Or are you saying there is some distribution of impacts across a spectrum of influences, and we need to hit them all?

You noted an objection to the "opinion" element, and yet your initial link sources an opinion piece with this entity called the child support hustle. But is is worth noting that your submission supports my assertion as well, when the author states "A law excluded two-parent families from receiving benefits if the state considered them both ‘able-bodied.’ " Notable is your article from the Baltimore Sun that appears to want to impugn conservatives for outcomes in a liberal-dominated city. But also acquieses that it was the government that fomented the single parent home, as I have also stated. So that was a source I had not been using, but will use moving forward to further bring my point home. I particularly enjoyed this one with it noting "New York City’s “man in the house rule” required welfare workers to make unannounced visits to determine if fathers were living in the home – if evidence of a male presence was found, cases were closed and welfare checks discontinued." Thank you for this one as well, another source supporting my position. Another great source you provided really supports my position as well, this one is really good...and I note it asserts Some programs actively discouraged marriage. Welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household. Access to food stamps and Medicaid was automatic only if the welfare assistance met government approval. Once a family income crossed a specific threshold, access to these resources disappeared. Marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage, placed at risk a mother’s economic well-being. In closing, every link you provided supports my assertion and position. Thank you!

As previously stated in this thread......keep current "incentives" in place, but elevate those incentives for a two-parent home.

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....