5 steps to fix black society

[Munky]

Poverty is a symptom of the problem, not a cause of it. Peoples life choices are the cause.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Poverty is a symptom of the problem, not a cause of it. Peoples life choices are the cause.

Ding.

My fiance grew up in a family of 5. She had 2 brothers. Their parents slaved and had sporadic income as low as $20k, and maybe as high as $35k in lucky times... Now that they are grown up - there are 3 kids out in the successful working world making > average american income. Yes. All 3. How do you explain that if poverty is holding people down?

 

[justoh]

Negative. Maybe you should bother to look at a dictionary before you make a post like this? See, e.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malign -



The rest of your post also seems to reflect a total lack of understanding of what I wrote. There is ample support, literally starting with the first post in the thread, about people pointing to symptoms like baggy pants as the "problem" to be cured. Lastly, I posted nothing which related in any way, shape or form to welfare abuse. What I posted about was the problem with the availability of endless welfare benefits (a government problem), not with their being abused by their recipients.

Honestly, I don't understand posts like yours one iota. Clearly your drive to be snarky is much more powerful than your reading comprehension or your desire to engage in discussion.

Don't you think waving the dictionary around is a little childish? Are you some kind of grammar nazi? It's a verb, it's an adjective, maybe even both, who really gives a shit?

And so what if their pants sag with their hats turned back? That don't stop the merchandise from flying off the racks.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Don't you think waving the dictionary around is a little childish? Are you some kind of grammar nazi? It's a verb, it's an adjective, maybe even both, who really gives a shit?

And so what if their pants sag with their hats turned back? That don't stop the merchandise from flying off the racks.

Uh, I assume you did, since you're the one who (erroneously) corrected me on my use of the word.

The rest of your post is just more inane nonsense, which makes it ironic that you're calling me "childish." Is this the quality of your posts generally?

 

[berzerker60]

Poverty is a symptom of the problem, not a cause of it. Peoples life choices are the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis .txt

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't know that there is a great deal of value in the opinions of white people (who constitute the overwhelming majority of the members of this forum) about how to "fix black society." My own observation is that many white people, even well meaning ones, don't really understand black people or want to, and are inclined to treat symptoms (e.g. saggy pants) rather than the underlying problems.

In practice, there is nothing anyone can do to change the major historical attribute that separates African-Americans from other ethnic groups (including, among others, African immigrants) - the fact that they descend from slaves, and were brought here and owned here as chattel for hundreds of years, both before and after we existed as a nation. I think it's naive and simpleminded to believe that this doesn't matter, or that black people should just "get over it" - this is a big issue, though one that is not, probably, fixable.

What is potentially fixable is the way our government has engaged in a pattern of both malign neglect (e.g., redlining and the War on Drugs) and benign neglect (the availability of long-term public assistance benefits that have created generations of unemployed/unemployable people of color).

At this point I think the benign neglect is probably the more harmful of the two, at least where I live. Minnesota is quite politically liberal yet has the greatest disparity in unemployment rates between white people and black people of any state in the US. This is not because we are more racist (I have lived all over the US and that just is not the case), it is because we have chosen to create a system that incentivizes single parenthood and makes it possible to live indefinitely without employment. Obviously this in turn devalues education and ultimately has largely destroyed our black middle class. I can't think of a more depressing, humiliating condition to live in than just keeping your head above water with the help of public assistance benefits, but I think the alternative (i.e., getting cut off and having to work for a living) must be terrifying to long-term recipients. We should be dedicating funds to helping them build job skills rather than rationing out a subsistence income every month IMO.

The reality is that fixing these problems requires courage and taking the long view. I would have liked to see President Obama take a greater leadership role in this arena, but he has not. Sadly I doubt any of this will change anytime soon.

I don't doubt that the availability of welfare disincentivizes some American blacks (and others) toward education and employment. However, any plan to limit/eliminate/refocus welfare must consider the fact that our economy has long term structural unemployment. Whatever is done with welfare isn't going to create jobs. It stands to reason that we must first ensure that jobs are available for every adult able to work - a state of affairs which does not exist in any first world nation - before we can talk about limiting the safety net. You can re-train people all you want. Some of these people may even find jobs. They'll just displace others. Economic change has to come before welfare change, and to be honest, I'm not so sure what form that will take.

 

[justoh]

Uh, I assume you did, since you're the one who (erroneously) corrected me on my use of the word.

The rest of your post is just more inane nonsense, which makes it particularly ironic that you're calling me "childish." Is this the quality of your posts generally? If so I look forward to your stay here being a short one.

Sorry, for my inane post. You did say posters misunderstood black people, without support (except for the obvious and non-literally intended baggy pants crap), and without offering any new insight except for a dubious opinion about welfare abuse, indicating a lack of understanding about black people.

Go on believing malign is an adjective, but please reconsider your opinions about black people.

 

[Agent11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act
This passed just three years ago, meaning the racist mandatory minimums were on the books until that recently.

Plus the ongoing (though not quite as strongly as it used to be) use of racist anger and resentment at losing white privilege as a wedge issue in politics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Mostly these days it's about shitting on the poor, though, who in lots of places *just happen* to be minorities who have been stepped on by institutional racism for many many generations and are now about 0.5-1.5 generations distant from that, while also encountering (sometimes unconsciously) racist business owners, resulting in fewer job opportunities despite equal qualifications, etc. Shitting on the poor isn't technically racism per se, but the outcomes are often equivalent, and that's no coincidence.

As for who is holding on to antiquated beliefs:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx#4
2013 11% of all adults disapprove. At least better than 23% in 2003! Unfortunately still > 1 in 10

Crack cocaine was being discriminated against, most likely because of inner city crime. Quite different from the Jim Crow laws.

As for the statistic, wait a few years and the old racists will be dead.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Sorry, for my inane post. You did say posters misunderstood black people, without support (except for the obvious and non-literally intended baggy pants crap), and without offering any new insight except for a dubious opinion about welfare abuse, indicating a lack of understanding about black people.

Go on believing malign is an adjective, but please reconsider your opinions about black people.

I never even mentioned or alluded to welfare abuse.

Who are you to say what the OP "literally intended"?

Is human language not your native tongue?

 

[berzerker60]

Crack cocaine was being discriminated against, most likely because of inner city crime. Quite different from the Jim Crow laws.

As for the statistic, wait a few years and the old racists will be dead.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

Which is great! Unfortunately they can vote until then.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html

The Color of Justice
This study, released by the Justice Institute in February, 2000, found that in California, African American, Latino and Asian American youth are significantly more likely to be transferred to adult court and sentenced to incarceration than white youths who commit comparable crimes. Compared to white youths, minority youths are 2.8 times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime, 6.2 times more likely to wind up in adult court, and 7 times more likely to be sent to prison by adult court.

Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served?
This study released on October 26, 2000 by Building Blocks for Youth, found that minority youth, particularly African American youth, were over-represented and received disparate treatment at several points in the process. In the 18 jurisdictions in the study, 82% of the cases that were filed in adult courts involved a minority.



And Justice for Some
This 2000 study was prepared by The National Council on Crime and Delinquency for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative. It concludes that "African American juveniles are overrepresented with respect to their proportion in the population at every decision point" in the juvenile justice process.

 

[justoh]

I never even mentioned or alluded to welfare abuse.

Who are you to say what the OP "literally intended"?

Is human language not your native tongue?

You seem to be alluding to welfare abuse. Sorry if i'm misunderstanding. If welfare recipients have a duty to get off welfare as soon as possible, and if they're instead relying upon it, getting used to it, when it's ultimately not necessary, then they're abusing the system. No?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You seem to be alluding to welfare abuse. Sorry if i'm misunderstanding. If welfare recipients have a duty to get off welfare as soon as possible, and if they're instead relying upon it, getting used to it, when it's ultimately not necessary, then they're abusing the system. No?

That is not what I am implying at all. Legally recipients of public assistance have no obligation to get off public assistance until and unless the government forces them to. In my job I have deposed many plaintiffs suing my client, the local transit authority, who have either never worked at all or worked for only a few months despite being in their 40s and 50s, with the remainder of their lives on public assistance. I don't think they are abusing the system - I think they are reasonably availing themselves of benefits the government should not be making available for extended periods. I have met people who had 4 generations living in the same house, with all of them living on public assistance. To me this calls for the government to wean people off these benefits with the assistance of job programs, rather than allowing it to continue indefinitely.

 

[hal2kilo]

That is not what I am implying at all. Legally recipients of public assistance have no obligation to get off public assistance until and unless the government forces them to. In my job I have deposed many plaintiffs suing my client, the local transit authority, who have either never worked at all or worked for only a few months despite being in their 40s and 50s, with the remainder of their lives on public assistance. I don't think they are abusing the system - I think they are reasonably availing themselves of benefits the government should not be making available for extended periods. I have met people who had 4 generations living in the same house, with all of them living on public assistance. To me this calls for the government to wean people off these benefits with the assistance of job programs, rather than allowing it to continue indefinitely.

I don't understand how that's possible since one of the big tenents of the Welfare reform that Clinton inacted with the helping hand of the Repubs was to limit lifetime benifits.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't understand how that's possible since one of the big tenents of the Welfare reform that Clinton inacted with the helping hand of the Repubs was to limit lifetime benifits.

Food stamps, WIC, disability, EITC, section 8...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Food stamps, WIC, disability, EITC, section 8...

Not to mention state benefits. Minnesota has historically been among the most generous states in America when it comes to such benefits, and has been rewarded by attracting the unemployable from the rest of the upper midwest.

 

[justoh]

That is not what I am implying at all. Legally recipients of public assistance have no obligation to get off public assistance until and unless the government forces them to. In my job I have deposed many plaintiffs suing my client, the local transit authority, who have either never worked at all or worked for only a few months despite being in their 40s and 50s, with the remainder of their lives on public assistance. I don't think they are abusing the system - I think they are reasonably availing themselves of benefits the government should not be making available for extended periods. I have met people who had 4 generations living in the same house, with all of them living on public assistance. To me this calls for the government to wean people off these benefits with the assistance of job programs, rather than allowing it to continue indefinitely.

Maybe, but it's a controversial opinion that was disguised as an obvious solution to a problem you acknowledged to be complex, which is full of unwarranted assumptions. I don't think most people believe that there's no obligation when accepting public assistance, though it makes sense and is convenient if one thinks welfare should be eliminated if this obligation doesn't exist, since then the question about whether enough people are taking this obligation seriously goes away.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't doubt that the availability of welfare disincentivizes some American blacks (and others) toward education and employment. However, any plan to limit/eliminate/refocus welfare must consider the fact that our economy has long term structural unemployment. Whatever is done with welfare isn't going to create jobs. It stands to reason that we must first ensure that jobs are available for every adult able to work - a state of affairs which does not exist in any first world nation - before we can talk about limiting the safety net. You can re-train people all you want. Some of these people may even find jobs. They'll just displace others. Economic change has to come before welfare change, and to be honest, I'm not so sure what form that will take.

Narrow view here. Who creates the jobs? People. Jobs don't need to be "created" for those on welfare roles when anyone can create their own job. America has lost it's drive for small business and having citizen working to better themselves, their families, and their communities. Everyone wants either a handout, and those that claim they don't want a handout still at least want someone else to hand them a job on a silver platter. It is still part of the same mentality of entitlement and enabling. Some of the wealthiest and successful people are completely self made. That was the original American dream. That even a person with little money, little education, but the right drive could succeed if they applied themselves. The ability to succeed in that way hasn't changed, but too many have taken the easier way out.

How to instill that drive again into people that don't want to hear that is a bit mind boggling.

 

[justoh]

Not to mention state benefits. Minnesota has historically been among the most generous states in America when it comes to such benefits, and has been rewarded by attracting the unemployable from the rest of the upper midwest.

If they're unemployable then you intend for them to die, since you want to eliminate their benefits. Well, I seem to have underestimated you. That would solve the problem. Well played.

 

[hal2kilo]

Narrow view here. Who creates the jobs? People. Jobs don't need to be "created" for those on welfare roles when anyone can create their own job. America has lost it's drive for small business and having citizen working to better themselves, their families, and their communities. Everyone wants either a handout, and those that claim they don't want a handout still at least want someone else to hand them a job on a silver platter. It is still part of the same mentality of entitlement and enabling. Some of the wealthiest and successful people are completely self made. That was the original American dream. That even a person with little money, little education, but the right drive could succeed if they applied themselves. The ability to succeed in that way hasn't changed, but too many have taken the easier way out.

How to instill that drive again into people that don't want to hear that is a bit mind boggling.

Your right. Where are the apple carts, the pencil sellers these days.w

 

[HumblePie]

Your right. Where are the apple carts, the pencil sellers these days.w

Unfortunately too many on the welfare roles see that the only "Self made" jobs out there are those that are criminal in nature.

 

[BoberFett]

If they're unemployable then you intend for them to die, since you want to eliminate their benefits. Well, I seem to have underestimated you. That would solve the problem. Well played.

This guy is taking P&N trolling to a whole new level. Bravo.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do think that expanding the schools disciplinary abilities and combining that with mandatory attendance to receive aid would help. A free education doesn't seem to be well valued but I think we'd see fewer attendance issues (generally huge issues in poor areas) if they didn't get money when they didn't show up for school

There ought to be financial consequences for those who do not send their children to school. A problem many blacks have expressed to my wife (college professor) is that there is pressure to not "play the white man's game" and get an education. That's their perspective.

Then we have the culture of "you owe me" which when it rears it's head is mighty ugly. A student who could not pass her classes (and who has free legal access) decided that her failure was because the college (and again my wife) was racist. Her getting the lowest scores in class apparently had nothing to do with it. It was because she was black. So repeated charges of race and threats of litigation kept this one going for a long time. The college doesn't dare ask her to leave.

In my county we have the highest rate of property taxation of any in the US. Yep, we're #1. A great deal goes to the inner city, not suburban schools, and the students aren't doing well in graduating. It isn't the teachers. It isn't the money. It's that going to school and learning are not only considered irrelevant, but actually discouraged by the community.

How much money do you have to throw at this to fix things? There isn't enough.

That brings me back to welfare reform. The system needs to be changed to give carrots and sticks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If they're unemployable then you intend for them to die, since you want to eliminate their benefits. Well, I seem to have underestimated you. That would solve the problem. Well played.

No, let's not reform anything. Let's send them to your country. Address please?

 

[HendrixFan]

I don't understand how that's possible since one of the big tenents of the Welfare reform that Clinton inacted with the helping hand of the Repubs was to limit lifetime benifits.

It was implemented near the end of Clinton's term and as has already been mentioned there are other avenues, including newly expanded ones, to allow for public assistance to continue. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 greatly expanded the refundable EITC which is a huge federal source of welfare.

I remember years back in sociology learning that in lower income areas men don't individualize masculinity the same way as in upper income areas. Unable to realistically buy a huge boat, a fast car, an unnecessarily large house, or any other method of showing dominance to a woman (via money); lower income men tend to utilize the tool that most greatly shows off masculinity, having kids.

For all the stories you can show of special and/or fortunate people who rose up from poverty the truth of the matter is that class mobility is a joke in this country and very few people are able to move up any more than one quintile in a generation. Just as welfare aid is the smart financial choice for most in poverty versus full employment or education, having a crap ton of kids is the "reasonable" emotional choice when dealing with the psychological impact of the hopelessness of poverty.

We don't have a livable minimum wage and we supplement that with gobs of welfare. The "cost" of raising minimum wage to being a livable wage can easily be absorbed by the sudden lack of need for welfare. Incentivise not having children via refundable tax breaks, instead of encouraging having children via the EITC and you will see another huge step forward. One of the most consistent factors in the perpetuity of poverty is teenage motherhood and out of wedlock childbirth. Stop subtly encouraging it and do the exact opposite. But pair it with free and commercialized/promoted/insisted birth control.

Those three things would make a huge difference in the lives of those in poverty. You need to follow that up with empowerment zones, better healthcare (UHC), and revitalizing education in poverty areas but those first three things will get us 75% of the way there. Pareto principle and all.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This guy is taking P&N trolling to a whole new level. Bravo.

Indeed. I didn't know who I was dealing with so he drew me in. Nicely done.