At 13 Baltimore City high schools, zero students tested proficient on 2023 state math exam

[Baker Boy 1,699]

It is interesting how the liberal claim of it’s not happening, has now turned into it didn’t happen. Of course the facts prove them wrong.

1. It didn’t happen.

[BuckSwope 654]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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?

OK, then this is where our disagreement is.    I largely don't see any concrete policies or solutions to this issue.   I mostly see what I was pushing back thinking your position was - the blacks need to fix their culture.  Period, that's the solution.   

I think the right is perfectly happy to let this continue, not because of racist reasons, but because of profit reasons.   It's financially advantageous for both sides to keep this status quo going - as I pointed out, profits and wealth gap have never been better, why change?   Politically, it's advantageous to point the finger at Dems and not offer much else besides the above.   I see one side pushing solutions, but many of them ungood.  I see the other side offering no solutions I think address the causes we discussed.   

To me the biggest causes are war on drugs, schools, jobs/opportunities in the poor communities.   I don't see the right tackling those things or offering solutions as you claim.  

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, BuckSwope said:

OK, then this is where our disagreement is.    I largely don't see any concrete policies or solutions to this issue.   I mostly see what I was pushing back thinking your position was - the blacks need to fix their culture.  Period, that's the solution.   

I think the right is perfectly happy to let this continue, not because of racist reasons, but because of profit reasons.   It's financially advantageous for both sides to keep this status quo going - as I pointed out, profits and wealth gap have never been better, why change?   Politically, it's advantageous to point the finger at Dems and not offer much else besides the above.   I see one side pushing solutions, but many of them ungood.  I see the other side offering no solutions I think address the causes we discussed.   

To me the biggest causes are war on drugs, schools, jobs/opportunities in the poor communities.   I don't see the right tackling those things or offering solutions as you claim.  

I think we agree on far more than we disagree.   

[Hardcore troubadour 15,430]

Like we saw in Virginia in the tranny bathroom rape case, when the perp belongs to a protected group, the school and others rushed to the defense of the perp, at the expense of the victim. Seems people on the left are willing to not only turn a blind eye to sexual assault victims, including children, but make accusations against, and even ridicule the victims. 

[BuckSwope 654]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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. 

I love the idea in principle.   My main two concerns would be:

1.  without changing war on drugs + incarcaration/death rates that stem from that, I am not sure how much that incentive will help.   

2.  I could foresee some negative consequences of this - namely "forcing" parents that shouldn't be together in the house together for $.  Goes back to my point that 2 parents doens't automatically mean loving, caring, successful.   I'd guess the positives outweigh the negatives here, just thinking out loud.  

[BuckSwope 654]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think we agree on far more than we disagree.   

On these boards, that's a huge win.   I don't care that I disagree with people on things, that's cool.    My biggest annoyance is people not taking the time to understand and talk through other positions or assuming what my position is.  

[GutterBoy 2,899]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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?

Your "sourcing" are all opinion pieces, and I can provide "sources" that refute those opinions as well.

Quote

 

 Unfortunately, misinformation constantly circulates to Black families and the welfare system.   One of the most common talking points that have resurfaced applies to Black fathers being forced from their homes and children by Black mothers in exchange for welfare benefits in the 1960s.

Black men often left their families searching for work because of employment discrimination and depressed wages for Black workers (CBPP).  Sadly, when the racially charged stereotypes of the Black father being kicked out of the home so that the mother can receive welfare, these realities are omitted.

Alabama is paramount in how officials considered and decided welfare cases about the ‘substitute parent’ rule during the early 1960s.  According to the Duke Law Journal, in 1964, Alabama submitted new state plan material under AFDC, including a ‘substitute father’ provision.

Alabama officials wanted to control mothers from having men around them or in their homes.  Federal lawmakers decided against implementing the provisions; however, Alabama enforced the unconstitutional rules into the late 1960s.   A mother challenged the law after the government terminated her benefits because of the ‘man in the house’ rule.

 

 

https://www.thechildsupporthustle.com/the-truth-about-black-parents-welfare-and-the-man-in-the-home-requirement/

Alabama is not liberal.  But there is an example of the govt saying it's immoral for a woman to be with a man whose not her husband or father to their kids, and we're cutting you off while he comes to your house.  So this isn't a liberal trying to enforce a single mother household (for some bizarre reason), it's a conservative saying don't bring a substitute father into the house.

Quote

Like welfare today, the objective years ago was to decrease the number of people on welfare.  Of course, when White mothers received the benefits, there was no problem, but specific rules applied when Black women were finally granted permission to receive the honor.  Even though the ‘man in the house’ law was reserved for ‘substitute’ fathers does not mean that overseers of the system did not force husbands and fathers to leave homes during midnight raids.  It was the 1960s, and the fight for civil rights was going strong.   Black men and boys were often dragged from homes in the middle of the night for no reason.

The same people who regurgitate that narrative always invoke the 1960s, the welfare system, and the racist Moynihan report.  I’m here to say that Black fathers do exist and are fighting to be fathers to their children too.  Black fathers are alienated and love their children too.  And the myth that welfare destroyed Black families because welfare workers came in the middle of the night and forced a Black mother to kick her Black husband out is laughable.   The people posting the memes and spewing the same talking points probably have never asked a Black family who lived in the 1960s about the state of the Black family.

 

 

Quote

 

The inner-city family has fallen apart, the argument goes, and thus an entire generation of young people has come of age without proper "values." It's all the fault of the liberal social welfare policies of the 1960s, President Bush said recently.

The irony, of course, is that conservatives were the ones who insisted on making family breakups a condition for welfare. Remember the "man in the house" rule? That was the one that said families couldn't get assistance if there was an able-bodied man in the house. It was enacted because opponents of welfare, particularly Southern conservatives, simply couldn't abide the idea of government "handouts" to male heads-of-household.

So if a man lost his job, he literally had to leave home if he wanted his children to be eligible for government surplus cheese, beans and peanut butter. Somehow conservatives persuaded themselves that this encouraged "family values."

With the advantage of 20-20 hindsight it's easy to see how the policy had exactly the opposite effect. It accelerated the fragmentation of poor families at just the time low-skilled factory jobs were disappearing. The expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s coincided with the decline of the factory economy in the worst possible way because the no-man-in-the-house rule actually encouraged the breakup of stable, two-parent families

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-05-18-1992139210-story.html

 

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3106&context=law-review

 

Quote

 

But this scenario was problematic for black Americans because of pervasive racial discrimination in employment in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s. During these decades, blacks typically worked in menial jobs. Not tied to the formal workforce, they were paid in cash and “off the books,” making them ineligible for social insurance programs that called for contributions through payroll taxes from both employers and employees.

Nor did blacks fare much better under ADC during these years.

The ADC was an extension of the state-operated mothers’ pension programs, where white widows were the primary beneficiaries. The criteria for eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred from full participation because the country operated under the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.

Developments in the 1950s and ‘60’s further disadvantaged black families.

This happened when states stepped up efforts to reduce ADC enrollment and costs. As I examined in my book, residency requirements were proposed so as to bar blacks migrating from the South to qualify for the program. 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.

Because of the strong American work ethic, and preference for a “hand up” versus a “hand-out,” the means-tested, cash assistance programs for poor families – and especially ADC renamed AFDC – have never been popular among Americans. As FDR himself said in his 1935 State of the Union address to Congress, “the government must and shall quit this business of relief.”

As the quality of life did indeed improve for whites, the number of white widows and their children on the AFDC rolls declined. At the same time, the easing of racial discrimination widened eligibility to more blacks, increasing the number of never-married women of color and their children who were born out of wedlock.

One point, however, to note here is that there has always been a public misconception about race and welfare. It is true that over the years blacks became disproportionately represented. But given that whites constitute a majority of the population, numerically they have always been the largest users of the AFDC program.

 

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/136200/racist-roots-welfare-reform

Quote

 

Does the state discourage poor fathers from being present in their children's lives? There are the emblematic images, like Diahann Carroll as a single mother on welfare in the 1974 movie Claudine, struggling to hide her boyfriend from a social worker.

Urban legends tell of "man in the house" rules that prohibit men from living under the same roof as moms who receive public assistance. Between media images, half-truths — and also well-meaning but flawed policies — the belief that the welfare system undermines poor families has been entrenched in the public mind for decades.

Now, with new fatherhood initiatives at public-housing authorities nationwide, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is seeking to debunk that idea.

 

https://www.theroot.com/welfare-fathers-and-those-persistent-myths-1790864434

[RLLD 4,230]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I love the idea in principle.   My main two concerns would be:

1.  without changing war on drugs + incarcaration/death rates that stem from that, I am not sure how much that incentive will help.   

2.  I could foresee some negative consequences of this - namely "forcing" parents that shouldn't be together in the house together for $.  Goes back to my point that 2 parents doens't automatically mean loving, caring, successful.   I'd guess the positives outweigh the negatives here, just thinking out loud.  

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. 

[TimHauck 2,875]

20 minutes ago, RLLD said:

So if we agree that a two-parent solution is superior, then lets create a further incentive for two-parent homes. 

such as?

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Your "sourcing" are all opinion pieces, and I can provide "sources" that refute those opinions as well.

 

https://www.thechildsupporthustle.com/the-truth-about-black-parents-welfare-and-the-man-in-the-home-requirement/

Alabama is not liberal.  But there is an example of the govt saying it's immoral for a woman to be with a man whose not her husband or father to their kids, and we're cutting you off while he comes to your house.  So this isn't a liberal trying to enforce a single mother household (for some bizarre reason), it's a conservative saying don't bring a substitute father into the house.

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-05-18-1992139210-story.html

 

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3106&context=law-review

 

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/136200/racist-roots-welfare-reform

https://www.theroot.com/welfare-fathers-and-those-persistent-myths-1790864434

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.

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, TimHauck said:

such as?

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

[BuckSwope 654]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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. 

Ah, there's our 2nd point of disagreement.   That makes more sense now, thanks.   I think the broken homes are a symptom of the problems plaguing poor communities in general. 

I used forced a little tongue in cheek.   What I think will largely happen in a community that is poor and mostly in the drug trade when you give them more money to stay at home first is that it will bring more of that culture into the house.   Do we simply just want 2 parents, or do we want 2 educated parents with jobs and decent prospects.   IMO the 2nd part of that equation should come first.  

 

[RLLD 4,230]

4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Your "sourcing" are all opinion pieces, and I can provide "sources" that refute those opinions as well.

 

https://www.thechildsupporthustle.com/the-truth-about-black-parents-welfare-and-the-man-in-the-home-requirement/

Alabama is not liberal.  But there is an example of the govt saying it's immoral for a woman to be with a man whose not her husband or father to their kids, and we're cutting you off while he comes to your house.  So this isn't a liberal trying to enforce a single mother household (for some bizarre reason), it's a conservative saying don't bring a substitute father into the house.

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-05-18-1992139210-story.html

 

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3106&context=law-review

 

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/136200/racist-roots-welfare-reform

https://www.theroot.com/welfare-fathers-and-those-persistent-myths-1790864434

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!

[GutterBoy 2,899]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

In closing, every link you provided supports my assertion and position.  Thank you!

You're insane!  Or a complete ass hole.

Your assertion is that liberal policies wanted to create single mother homes in black communities.  What I shared with you is multiple conclusions that conservatives didn't want to give welfare to households where there was a able bodied man that couldn't find work.

It wasn't about liberals paying women to kick men out of the house, it was conservatives not wanting to give handouts to men that didn't work.

Focking idiot

[RLLD 4,230]

10 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Ah, there's our 2nd point of disagreement.   That makes more sense now, thanks.   I think the broken homes are a symptom of the problems plaguing poor communities in general. 

I used forced a little tongue in cheek.   What I think will largely happen in a community that is poor and mostly in the drug trade when you give them more money to stay at home first is that it will bring more of that culture into the house.   Do we simply just want 2 parents, or do we want 2 educated parents with jobs and decent prospects.   IMO the 2nd part of that equation should come first.  

 

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?

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

You're insane!  Or a complete ass hole.

Your assertion is that liberal policies wanted to create single mother homes in black communities.  What I shared with you is multiple conclusions that conservatives didn't want to give welfare to households where there was a able bodied man that couldn't find work.

It wasn't about liberals paying women to kick men out of the house, it was conservatives not wanting to give handouts to men that didn't work.

Focking idiot

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.....

[RLLD 4,230]

30 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

On these boards, that's a huge win.   I don't care that I disagree with people on things, that's cool.    My biggest annoyance is people not taking the time to understand and talk through other positions or assuming what my position is.  

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

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.....

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.

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.

Also there was a huge welfare reform in the 90s, driven by republicans, that further limited who receives welfare.

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

[BuckSwope 654]

16 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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?

That is what my opinion is, correct.   We seem to agree on the policies in action and their negative consequences, but not the order.  

I agree we saw the communities start to prosper until about the 80s then it started to suffer.   I don't think black communities decided they didn't care about the family, broke up and took up a life of crime.    I think policies you describe - most notably decent jobs leaving and war on drugs kicked in which caused a spike in things like incarceration rates and black men dying.   It's really hard to have a two parent house when one is in jail or dead.   Then add in welfare incentives that we talked about, which also drive single parent numbers up.    Etc, etc.   

I go back all these things we talk about are problems in poor communities in general.  I talked about my white trash family, and I know many of us know those people as well - uneducated, on welfare and drugs, multiple dads for kids, etc.   It's not a phenomenon exclusive to AAs, it's more just more likely to be in that community because they are in poverty and are undereducated at a much higher %.  

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

Hillary said it takes a village 30 years ago and she was right. As a nation we have a collective responsibility to make this situation better. After all, we caused it. If there are problems with black culture it’s mainly because of the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. Now we need to try and fix it as best we can. 

 

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

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.

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.

Also there was a huge welfare reform in the 90s, driven by republicans, that further limited who receives welfare.

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

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.

 

 

 

[RLLD 4,230]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Hillary said it takes a village 30 years ago and she was right. As a nation we have a collective responsibility to make this situation better. After all, we caused it. If there are problems with black culture it’s mainly because of the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. Now we need to try and fix it as best we can. 

 

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.....

 

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.

 

 

 

OK, so you're telling me that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was liberal policy?  Because Clinton (a liberal) signed it?  And it wasn't part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America?  The Republican led initiative?  And the 104th Congress that passed the law, only after surviving 2 Clinton Vetos, this Congress that was run by Republicans, was somehow part of the DNC?

And only half of the Democrats in congress voted for it, and many were outraged at Clinton for voting for it, but still, it was led by Democrats.  Democrats wanted less govt handouts?  Democrats wanted less people on Welfare?  You're really tell me this?

[RLLD 4,230]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

OK, so you're telling me that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was liberal policy?  Because Clinton (a liberal) signed it?  And it wasn't part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America?  The Republican led initiative?  And the 104th Congress that passed the law, only after surviving 2 Clinton Vetos, this Congress that was run by Republicans, was somehow part of the DNC?

And only half of the Democrats in congress voted for it, and many were outraged at Clinton for voting for it, but still, it was led by Democrats.  Democrats wanted less govt handouts?  Democrats wanted less people on Welfare?  You're really tell me this?

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.....

 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.....

 

 

It was almost completely Democrats who imposed Jim Crow, just as it was Democrats who defended slavery. It’s a shame and disgrace that will stain the Democratic Party forever. 
 

It’s also a very tiresome and lame argument, because it is used by modern day conservatives to attack modern day liberals. The Democrats prior to the Civil Rights movement, especially those from the Deep South, were not liberal.  

[RLLD 4,230]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It was almost completely Democrats who imposed Jim Crow, just as it was Democrats who defended slavery. It’s a shame and disgrace that will stain the Democratic Party forever. 
 

It’s also a very tiresome and lame argument, because it is used by modern day conservatives to attack modern day liberals. The Democrats prior to the Civil Rights movement, especially those from the Deep South, were not liberal.  

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?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,430]

9 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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.....

 

Amazing when truth is placed before narrative.  Nice work. 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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?

Not every policy, as it turns out, was a good one. But your implication, if I understand you correctly, is that liberal policies were DELIBERATELY designed to harm African Americans. I don’t believe that and I strongly doubt you can ever prove it. 

[RLLD 4,230]

50 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Not every policy, as it turns out, was a good one. But your implication, if I understand you correctly, is that liberal policies were DELIBERATELY designed to harm African Americans. I don’t believe that and I strongly doubt you can ever prove it. 

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. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

26 minutes ago, RLLD said:

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. 

1 and 3 are absurd and really call into question your entire viewpoint. Well actually 3 probably has some validity but you are deeply, deeply naive if you think that doesn’t apply to the Rs as well.

2 might be valid, or at least the first part of it. Maybe you should focus on that?

[RLLD 4,230]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

1 and 3 are absurd and really call into question your entire viewpoint. Well actually 3 probably has some validity but you are deeply, deeply naive if you think that doesn’t apply to the Rs as well.

2 might be valid, or at least the first part of it. Maybe you should focus on that?

Not absurd.  I would caution against underestimating those in power.  It would be unwise to pretend all our politicians are good, or have our best interests at heart. Naive would be the dismissal of the possibility, as you have done. 

My main focus remains item 2, as it always has been.  But that assumes only the best of intentions, and I am not invested that these people proceed with the best of intentions. 

[RLLD 4,230]

33 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

1 and 3 are absurd and really call into question your entire viewpoint. Well actually 3 probably has some validity but you are deeply, deeply naive if you think that doesn’t apply to the Rs as well.

2 might be valid, or at least the first part of it. Maybe you should focus on that?

Follow on question.  Do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing?

[RogerDodger 798]

Gutterboy and his reading disability getting destroyed again.  Least shocking thing ever.

[BuckSwope 654]

11 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Follow on question.  Do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing?

You didn't ask me, but what do you mean when you use that term and are you asking if he believes it exists in 2023? 

[RLLD 4,230]

6 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

You didn't ask me, but what do you mean when you use that term and are you asking if he believes it exists in 2023? 

Are we observing the outcomes of systemic racism when we look at the AA community?  Is that the reason the AA community has not progressed as well as we had hoped and/or has areas where we seem to have lost ground?

[BuckSwope 654]

Ah, that's a little different.  Thanks for the clarification.  

[peenie 1,915]

My sister is a high school teacher and she said that what people don’t understand is that the kids don’t care about those tests. The tests have no bearing on their grades so they don’t put any effort in taking the tests. She said the children aren’t stupid and they probably know math but they are forced to take so many standardized tests that they don’t care about them. She says so many kids are distracted by their cell phones. The teacher can’t force them to care. She feels children today run over their parents and that parents don’t have control over their children. She blames the parents completely for these children’s failures. 
 

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, peenie said:

My sister is a high school teacher and she said that what people don’t understand is that the kids don’t care about those tests. The tests have no bearing on their grades so they don’t put any effort in taking the tests. She said the children aren’t stupid and they probably know math but they are forced to take so many standardized tests that they don’t care about them. She says so many kids are distracted by their cell phones. The teacher can’t force them to care. She feels children today run over their parents and that parents don’t have control over their children. She blames the parents completely for these children’s failures. 
 

And I submit that she is spot on.   Our kids are all different, and they are who they are, truly....we can help them be better though.  And if we dive into it and consistently set high expectations, with suitable accountability, then they WILL succeed. And it honestly is not that hard to succeed.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,430]

2 minutes ago, peenie said:

My sister is a high school teacher and she said that what people don’t understand is that the kids don’t care about those tests. The tests have no bearing on their grades so they don’t put any effort in taking the tests. She said the children aren’t stupid and they probably know math but they are forced to take so many standardized tests that they don’t care about them. She says so many kids are distracted by their cell phones. The teacher can’t force them to care. She feels children today run over their parents and that parents don’t have control over their children. She blames the parents completely for these children’s failures. 
 

Oh well, that’s a wrap. Nothing can be done. 

[edjr 6,588]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:06 AM, BuckSwope said:

I love the idea in principle.   My main two concerns would be:

1.  without changing war on drugs + incarcaration/death rates that stem from that, I am not sure how much that incentive will help.   

2.  I could foresee some negative consequences of this - namely "forcing" parents that shouldn't be together in the house together for $.  Goes back to my point that 2 parents doens't automatically mean loving, caring, successful.   I'd guess the positives outweigh the negatives here, just thinking out loud.  

I think we need to give 3 and 4 parent homes more of a chance.