Why liberals should stop trying to "help" black Americans
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
Democrats are not really interested in helping African Americans. They offer poverty and dependency in exchange for votes.
this. And with Obama saying he's going to unilaterally do something regarding immigration, I think he's setting up Hispanic immigrants to get into the same cycle of poverty/ entitlement mentality.
Yup. It ends up bring a form of slavery: slaves to the welfare state. If the dems ever get the Hispanic vote, they will be locked in for the foreseeable future.
Thomas Sowell (the pre-eminent black conservative thinker and author) wrote a masterpiece on this topic in 2005.
Read "Black Rednecks And White Liberals." It's the most persuasive, well-researched, irrefutable argument I've ever seen on this.
And no surprise, the post WWII breakdown of the two-parent black family is at the center. What a shocker.
Read "Black Rednecks And White Liberals." It's the most persuasive, well-researched, irrefutable argument I've ever seen on this.
And no surprise, the post WWII breakdown of the two-parent black family is at the center. What a shocker.
Last edited:
Sowell is a poignant figure. The people he most desires to help most usually disagree with him. The people who often agree with him are not his own people and probably frustrate him more than his own people who reject him.
There is a growing core of black conservatives, and I'm sure men like Thomas are glad to hear new voices at their side. Still, though, the years of standing seemingly alone against the tide of pop culture must have been tough. I have great respect for the man.
Wait, are you trying to tell me that liberal policies intending to accomplish a particular goal have both, first, failed to accomplish that goal and, second, resulted in unintended consequences that make accomplishing that goal even more difficult???
INCONCEIVABLE!!!
:biggrin2:
INCONCEIVABLE!!!
:biggrin2:
My personal take is that there are many liberals who realize that the bread and circus nature of public assistance is much cheaper than it would be to keep all of these people in prison, where they are almost guaranteed to never be able to get out of their socio-economic status as a result of being in prison. Non-liberals think by getting rid of public assistance they will all of a sudden be upstanding citizens because they will be forced to be. I just don't see it, crime would sky rocket, and I guess the chance to finally shoot someone with all the guns that they have been hoarding for the eventual poor person apocalypse might finally help bring closure to the fear complex.
There are always going to be people who have no desire to participate in society. There have been since the beginning of time. However society is much more complex now, and our system of laws would end up allowing these folks to mooch much more off the system than they currently are. You used to be able to get rid of the peasants through conscription wars and using them for cannon fodder. That doesn't work nearly as well now.
As far as the policies bringing about the feelings of self-pity and victimization, its easy to make that statement when its almost impossible to test the opposite position. It may be possible to validate it by observing if the same thing happens to white culture that is now being forced to take advantage of government assistance due to such a poor economy (SSDisability, Welfare, etc) once all the unemployment ran out.
I have to admit, I chuckled aloud when I read this.
Another option might be to look at the success other minorities have had and compare the "White" versus "Black" response to them - especially when it differs. Both tend to view the current influx of Hispanic immigrants with at least some resentment, primarily for "taking jobs" by "working too cheaply". A prime example of a difference, though, is seen in the African-American / Korean conflict within the '92 L.A. riots. African-American rioters began targeting other minority areas and shop-owners, specifically Korean. Something like 3,000 Korean owned businesses were destroyed during those riots. During that time, more than a few outspoken rioters publicly admitted - in some form or fashion - that jealousy was a major motivator in those attacks with statements about the Korean immigrants "thinking they're better than us", being successful or getting ahead "before us", or not "waiting their turn".
If that isn't an example of an attitude and behavior born out of "feelings of self-pity and victimization", then I don't know what is.
If we're doing nothing more than appeasing the bully so to speak in hopes they don't riot then we truly are a country of idiots.
I would rather go down trying to actually fix the problem than appease the problem in fear of someone rioting.
I would rather go down trying to actually fix the problem than appease the problem in fear of someone rioting.
So are you saying that if we didn't have welfare more blacks would commit crimes? I think what welfare has done is destroy the family fabric in many black families. It would take a couple of generations to repair in my opinion, but without a man in the house or even involved, many kids look to gangs and other sorts of violence as "acceptance" for lack of a father figure in their lives. The lack of two parent families is what seems to be tearing this country apart. Even many black leaders both liberal and conservative will tell you that many black youth lack acceptable role models due to a father not being in the home.
Welfare, like Obamacare, lends itself to not having a father figure/head of household so that government can replace that and become the default figurehead/decision maker.
Yes, I am saying crime would go way up.
Regarding welfare and Obamacare being the cause for not having a father figure in the household, please show me proof.
You say that these systems, if they were gone, would all of a sudden make young men be upstanding individuals. They aren't around when they are supposedly on easy street, how is a harder life going to make them want to take care of their children/wife/girlfriend even more?
There has to be a systematic way to start fixing the problem rather than appeasing it (to prevent riots/crime increasing). Because what we've been doing isn't working. If threats of "we'll riot if you don't keep sending us a check" is working for them then as long as the checks keep getting sent don't expect any change.
I will completely agree.
So what is that systematic way? Because the only solution coming out of DC is to cut, cut, cut and let them figure it out on their own. If someone were to actually come up with a plan that entailed more than just "cut all social benefits and tell them to get a job" I would be more than happy to listen.
It is a good start to begin eliminating the institutions that encourage them to NOT be upstanding individuals. Insulating people from the consequences of bad decisions results in more bad decisions. There is nothing wrong with helping people in need, but when you incentivize sloth in the name of fairness and tell them they are entitled to something for nothing, fostering class envy, and using wealth distribution to create unaccountable institutions with no reason to encourage responsible behavior, then you make the problem worse, not better. You end up with a cycle of dependence and a general lack of responsibility and appreciation for earning things. For existing broken individuals, the toothpaste is already out of the tube, but that doesn't mean you need to ask for a bigger tube, to start squeezing more toothpaste all over everything.
I have said here before that I would prefer setting up a system in which recipients get four years max as their lifetime entitlement. Housing is provided, but you clean your living space and daily inspections required. Drug testing done habitually. Contraception (e.g. norplant) mandatory. Child care provided. Education/vocation training would be free and mandatory (you pick from a list the area you want). Violation of any of these would result in counseling. Second violation results in ejection and permanent loss of eligibility. Let the Army run it like they did with the CCC.
After four years, you get a diploma, a pat on the back and best wishes for the future. If you get down on you luck (or make catastrophic decisions) again, go see your family.
It would not be ideal from a philosophical perspective, but it would be better than what we have now.
I don't have an exhaustive plan readily available. However, I think we're smart enough of a society to come up with a lot better system than what we have now. My initial suggestion would be to select an age group to begin implementing the system and have the rest grandfathered in under the old system because there are some who are simply too old to include in the process.
For example, and this is just purely as an example, anyone over the age of 45 years old would be grandfathered in under the old system. Anyone younger than that would be under the new system. The new system would be one that for one to continue getting government subsidies they would be required to attend a program or programs that prepared them to eventually get out on their own. Something similar to a trade school but maybe a broader scope. Teach them to do something and once they were at a point where they could get a job then help them find a job and gradually reduce the subsidies based on the amount of money they made at their job.
Anyone who didn't want to go this route would basically become an employee of the government and be required to do something. Almost like a bond servant. I haven't really thought this one out. But outside of physical or mental issues, no one should be able to simply sit at home and draw a check.
Anyways, the point is I think we both can agree we could easily think of a better way than what we're doing now.
I have a plan that would be guaranteed to work. However it could never be implemented in a society such as this one.
As far as lib policies helping blacks: if something hasnt worked for 50 yrs, perhaps we should admit defeat and try something else.
As far as lib policies helping blacks: if something hasnt worked for 50 yrs, perhaps we should admit defeat and try something else.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
