World Politics

[Anonymous]

In my country, govt housing was very successful. The current prime minister (sort of like a prez, but not, since we're still officially a monarchy) grew up in govt housing.

You seem to have the order wrong. It wasn't the govt housing that destroyed these communities, it was the fact that these people didn't have a lot of money so govt housing was the most affordable option.

Poor communities have a lot of problems because they're poor, not because of who owns the deed to the house they live in.

The government housing was just one of the programs that did nothing to bring that community out of poverty. The entire welfare system did nothing but enslave many of them to welfare checks and government housing. It did nothing to raise them out of poverty. The current section 8 program requires a percentage of contribution on their part. It works much better. Yes, there will always be some who need significant government help, but I would suggest that percentage is smaller than people like Johnson envisioned. My point was clear, it isn't about who owns the deed. It is about enslavement to the idea that you have no hope to better your circumstance and therefore are deserving of living without any contribution of your own.

I have done countless hours of work in poor communities, and I promise that I don't need a lesson from anyone regarding the problems there. I grew up very poor also. There really is something to the idea of helping a man stand on his own two feet instead of putting him on your back and carrying him so long as his legs are capable.

 

[Anonymous]

The government housing was just one of the programs that did nothing to bring that community out of poverty. The entire welfare system did nothing but enslave many of them to welfare checks and government housing. It did nothing to raise them out of poverty. The current section 8 program requires a percentage of contribution on their part. It works much better. Yes, there will always be some who need significant government help, but I would suggest that percentage is smaller than people like Johnson envisioned. My point was clear, it isn't about who owns the deed. It is about enslavement to the idea that you have no hope to better your circumstance and therefore are deserving of living without any contribution of your own.

I have done countless hours of work in poor communities, and I promise that I don't need a lesson from anyone regarding the problems there. I grew up very poor also. There really is something to the idea of helping a man stand on his own two feet instead of putting him on your back and carrying him so long as his legs are capable.

I think, to some degree, in our efforts as a nation to 'take care of' the disadvantaged (otherwise capable) members of society we end up hurting them far worse than if we did nothing at all (which I'm NOT advocating).

I think it was Warren Buffet who said, "I want to leave enough money for my children to do something but not enough to do nothing". While ours is largely a compassionate society, enabling folks to be dependent on the welfare check is loaded with unintended consequences.

Impacts of Welfare Reform (written in 2006)

Ten years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation overhauling part of the nation’s welfare system. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–193, PRWORA) replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three goals: (1) to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; (2) to reduce child poverty; and (3) to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.

At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately denounced the welfare reform legislation, predicting that it would result in substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform has been effective in meeting each of its goals.

Child poverty has fallen. Although opponents of reform predicted it would increase child poverty, some 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995.

Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children. In the quarter century prior to welfare reform, the old welfare system failed to reduce poverty among black children. Since welfare reform, the poverty rate among black children has fallen at an unprecedented rate from 41.5 percent in 1995 to 32.9 percent in 2004.

Unprecedented declines in poverty also occurred among children of single mothers. For a quarter-century before welfare reform, there was little net decline in poverty in this group. Povertywas only slightly lower in 1995 (50.3 percent) than it had been in 1971 (53.1 percent). After the enactment of welfare reform, the poverty rate for children of single mothers fell at a dramatic rate, from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 2004.

Welfare caseloads were cut in half. The AFDC/TANF caseload dropped from 4.3 million families at the time PRWORA was enacted to 1.89 million today.

Employment of single mothers has surged. The employment rate of the most disadvantaged single mothers increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.

The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a near standstill. For thirty years prior to welfare reform, the percentage of births that were out-of-wedlock rose steadily by about one percentage point per year.The out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7.7 percent in 1965 when the War on Poverty started; by 1995 it had reached 32.2 percent.Following welfare reform, the long-term rapid growth in out-of-wedlock birth rate ended.Although the rate has continued to inch up slowly, the increase is far slower than in the pre-reform period.


Interesting are the predictions of those who thought welfare reform was heartless and cruel.

Ten years ago, when the welfare reform legislation was signed into law, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D–NY) proclaimed the new law to be “the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction.”[1] He predicted, “Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.”[2]

Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, declared the new reform law an “outrage…that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children.” The reform, she said, “will leave a moral blot on [Clinton’s] presidency and on our nation that will never be forgotten.” [3]

The Children’s Defense Fund predicted that the reform law would increase “child poverty nationwide by 12 percent…make children hungrier…[and] reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families with children in the nation.” [4]

The Urban Institute issued a widely cited report predicting that the new law would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty. In addition, the study announced that the new law would cause one-tenth of all American families, including 8 million families with children, to lose income. [5]

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities asserted the new law would increase the number of children who are poor and “make many children who are already poor poorer still…. No piece of legislation in U.S. history has increased the severity of poverty so sharply [as the welfare reform will].” [6]

Patricia Ireland, then president of the National Organization for Women, stated that the new welfare law “places 12.8 million people on welfare at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness.” [7]


This goes back to the proverb "give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, teach a man to fish and he's fed for a lifetime."

The $64 question is how does society figure out who's looking for a hand-out and who's looking for a hand-up? And how do we best care for those who will always need help now and in the future?


Interesting read (although I realize some will question the source).
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

 

[Hugh Januss]

"give a man a fish and he's fed for a day, teach a man to fish and he's fed for a lifetime."

You keep going back to this proverb which is a fine one. The only problem that I have is that for Corporate America it has become "teach a man to fish for us and we'll pay him as little as possible while getting rich selling his fish and then replace him as soon as we find someone who will do the job for less"

 

[Anonymous]

You keep going back to this proverb which is a fine one. The only problem that I have is that for Corporate America it has become "teach a man to fish for us and we'll pay him as little as possible while getting rich selling his fish and then replace him as soon as we find someone who will do the job for less"

You do have a point there.

 

[Anonymous]

You keep going back to this proverb which is a fine one. The only problem that I have is that for Corporate America it has become "teach a man to fish for us and we'll pay him as little as possible while getting rich selling his fish and then replace him as soon as we find someone who will do the job for less"

I don't doubt this happens but which Corporations, specifically, are you referring to and what's your alternative? Regulate corporations from existence?

You make it sound as if that's the standard with few exceptions. Additionally, what's keeping people from not working for corporations where the above is true?

Hugh, you don't work for a corporation like that and last I knew TFF is changing careers to become a lawyer. I worked for a corporation where I didn't appreciate some/most of their business practices. I don't work there anymore. The laws of supply and demand work in favor and against corporate america too.

 

[buckwheat]

The fact that you know the mental makeup of Titanic characters is super sweet. Happy belated Valentines Day.

I figured I'd reference popular culture rather than something from Dostoevsky because I wanted to avoid the elitest appellation which your side always falls back on when criticizing someone who may have read a book.

You know that "we've met the enemy and he is us," came from the comic Pogo?

In light of your limited awareness of things maybe I'll quote Bazooka Joe.

 

[usedtobefast]

I don't doubt this happens but which Corporations, specifically, are you referring to and what's your alternative? Regulate corporations from existence?

You make it sound as if that's the standard with few exceptions. Additionally, what's keeping people from not working for corporations where the above is true?

Hugh, you don't work for a corporation like that and last I knew TFF is changing careers to become a lawyer. I worked for a corporation where I didn't appreciate some/most of their business practices. I don't work there anymore. The laws of supply and demand work in favor and against corporate america too.

wages have been driven down for decades now. American corporations are responsible doing it. people used to work in retail jobs and earn enough to
buy a house and put there kids through school. can you imagine doing that now? retail jobs are low,low wage mcjobs anymore. saying supply and demand will level the market place is a load. labor costs are always the first thing the corporate bean counters look at. drive those wages down, less benefits, no sick pay, no vacation. keep people on a part time schedule so
they get NO benefits with the recession far from over and jobs not coming back, wages are going even lower. it will effect everyone. lawyers,doctors,musicians, and accountants among them.
i am not amused.

 

[knewcleardaze]

I don't doubt this happens but which Corporations, specifically, are you referring to and what's your alternative? Regulate corporations from existence?

You make it sound as if that's the standard with few exceptions. Additionally, what's keeping people from not working for corporations where the above is true?

Hugh, you don't work for a corporation like that and last I knew TFF is changing careers to become a lawyer. I worked for a corporation where I didn't appreciate some/most of their business practices. I don't work there anymore. The laws of supply and demand work in favor and against corporate america too.

Just off the top of my pointy head....Nike, Adidas,most all clothing available in North America, sports gear, auto parts, daggone most everything is made in China. I'm too tired to think of alternatives at the moment.
However, I'm thinking pay people a reasonable wage, and they will be able to afford the products they produce. Kinda like what Henry Ford had in mind.
Today it seems companies must produce the highest possible return on investment for share holders, irregardless of all consequences.

 

[buckwheat]

The government housing was just one of the programs that did nothing to bring that community out of poverty. The entire welfare system did nothing but enslave many of them to welfare checks and government housing. It did nothing to raise them out of poverty. The current section 8 program requires a percentage of contribution on their part. It works much better. Yes, there will always be some who need significant government help, but I would suggest that percentage is smaller than people like Johnson envisioned. My point was clear, it isn't about who owns the deed. It is about enslavement to the idea that you have no hope to better your circumstance and therefore are deserving of living without any contribution of your own.

I have done countless hours of work in poor communities, and I promise that I don't need a lesson from anyone regarding the problems there. I grew up very poor also. There really is something to the idea of helping a man stand on his own two feet instead of putting him on your back and carrying him so long as his legs are capable.

I think you're way off in your characterization of LBJ's attitudes and motives. The guy had many flaws but he wasn't stupid enough to denigrate a whole ethnicity as you'd have people believe and I wouldn't doubt that he may even have been a little envious of MLK's incredible gifts as a leader of all people, the world over.

Your defensiveness, pride and self promotion, are the only things I'm getting out of your last couple of posts.

Nowhere in them am I seeing the incredibly violent oppression black people experienced as a Racial group. You don't think that instituionalized racism until 1964 and more subtle racism afterwards have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today?

Congratulations, you were poor but you made it! Your concescension is shining brightly.

 

[buckwheat]

I don't doubt this happens but which Corporations, specifically, are you referring to and what's your alternative? Regulate corporations from existence?

Fedex for one and I can point how their lobby in DC help water down OSHA regs to the point of nonexistence.

As to the point of regulating Corps. from existence. That statement really doesn't correspond to reality.

The alternative is to have a balance.

Aside from changing Social Security, Paul O'Neill was a conservative many Dems could have lived with. He tried to do the right thing and was forced out by the Demogogues.

 

[Anonymous]

Just off the top of my pointy head....Nike, Adidas,most all clothing available in North America, sports gear, auto parts, daggone most everything is made in China. I'm too tired to think of alternatives at the moment.
However, I'm thinking pay people a reasonable wage, and they will be able to afford the products they produce. Kinda like what Henry Ford had in mind.
Today it seems companies must produce the highest possible return on investment for share holders, irregardless of all consequences.

Not all corporations are public and what role if any do you think unions have played in the job destruction particularly in the American manufacturing sector?

Let's say corporate america is paying prevailing wage on everything built in the USA and we enter a trade war with China (no more Chinese imports). Are you willing to pay 40% more for your Nike's? Or how about that $1500 refrigerator now costing $2500?

And no, I don't think unions are evil.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

The current section 8 program requires a percentage of contribution on their part. It works much better.

Oh OK, so did govt housing used to be fully subsidised by your govt? In NZ, tenants always paid rent, but until about two decades ago it was cheaper than market rents.

And I'm not too worried about people leeching off of welfare either. Last time I saw the stats for NZ, a few years ago, there were only 400 long-term unemployed people in the whole country. If they really don't want to find work, or are so useless that no employer wants to hire them, or they have failed to find a job for another reason, this 400 people isn't much of a liability on the economy. It's not like this money simply disappears either, it gets spent within the economy.

If the US has such a big welfare problem compared to the typical welfare states (like those Scandinavian countries), then maybe it's because the welfare payments are too small to allow the recipients to escape poverty?

But more likely, most of the rhetoric is probably just welfare-bashing by those who resent every dollar of tax they have to pay (still a lot of this goes on in NZ). It's likely a myth that welfare keeps people poor and dependent. Countries with no welfare typically have significant percentages of their populations living in shanty towns. (Sort of like Flint, Michigan? ).

 

[buckwheat]

I think it was Warren Buffet who said, "I want to leave enough money for my children to do something but not enough to do nothing". While ours is largely a compassionate society, enabling folks to be dependent on the welfare check is loaded with unintended consequences.

This is unfair because you took Buffet's quote completely out of context. Buffet said that in reference to NOT repealing the estate tax which is something the Republicans have wanted to do away with for years.

Impacts of Welfare Reform (written in 2006)


Interesting read (although I realize some will question the source).
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/tst071906a.cfm

I will state that many of these conservative think tanks lie whenever things come down to money. Don't mean to be nasty.

 

[Anonymous]

Fedex for one and I can point how their lobby in DC help water down OSHA regs to the point of nonexistence.

As to the point of regulating Corps. from existence. That statement really doesn't correspond to reality.

The alternative is to have a balance.

Aside from changing Social Security, Paul O'Neill was a conservative many Dems could have lived with. He tried to do the right thing and was forced out by the Demogogues.

Ok, then why would anybody work for Fedex? At some point Fedex would have to compete for labor, no?

I agree with you on the need for balance, 100%.

I also agree with you on O'Neill. Polticians on both sides are corrupt and in many cases they are incompetent as well. I distrust politicians like you distrust corporate ceo's (I don't trust them either).

Maybe I have trust issues...

 

[buckwheat]

Oh OK, so did govt housing used to be fully subsidised by your govt? In NZ, tenants always paid rent, but until about two decades ago it was cheaper than market rents.

And I'm not too worried about people leeching off of welfare either. Last time I saw the stats for NZ, a few years ago, there were only 400 long-term unemployed people in the whole country. If they really don't want to find work, or are so useless that no employer wants to hire them, or they have failed to find a job for another reason, this 400 people isn't much of a liability on the economy. It's not like this money simply disappears either, it gets spent within the economy.

If the US has such a big welfare problem compared to the typical welfare states (like those Scandinavian countries), then maybe it's because the welfare payments are too small to allow the recipients to escape poverty?

But more likely, most of the rhetoric is probably just welfare-bashing by those who resent every dollar of tax they have to pay (still a lot of this goes on in NZ). It's likely a myth that welfare keeps people poor and dependent. Countries with no welfare typically have significant percentages of their populations living in shanty towns. (Sort of like Flint, Michigan? ).

Oh, you've nailed it.

It's good to read this stuff because it gives me a little hope. Thanks.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

saying supply and demand will level the market place is a load.

Funnily enough, those that preach "supply and demand" tend to oppose death taxes. Inheriting wealth instead of earning it is worse than welfare as it reduces efficiency on a larger scale (yet we don't hear them decry this "dependence"). Inheritance obviously hurts the economy since this isn't the market allowing someone to accumulate capital according to their ability to manage it. Arbitrarily handing capital over to someone who hasn't proven to be effective at managing that capital will bring in inefficiencies.

(Not that I'd like all my possessions to go to the govt when I die, but maybe to charity).

 

[Anonymous]

This is unfair because you took Buffet's quote completely out of context. Buffet said that in reference to NOT repealing the estate tax which is something the Republicans have wanted to do away with for years.




I will state that many of these conservative think tanks lie whenever things come down to money. Don't mean to be nasty.

Buffet's quote is, I think, relevent. He talks about being the enabler that allows his kids to become like Paris Hilton. BTW, I'm very familiar with the estate tax. It can be really unfair.


This particular presentation was given before the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006. I'm guessing the facts and figures were likely reasonably sound as many of the statistics were taken from Census data. The bottom line is the data is either correct or incorrect. If even most of the figures are correct then it's a reasonably powerful argument.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Oh, you've nailed it.

Thanks man.

 

[usedtobefast]

Not all corporations are public and what role if any do you think unions have played in the job destruction particularly in the American manufacturing sector?

Let's say corporate america is paying prevailing wage on everything built in the USA and we enter a trade war with China (no more Chinese imports). Are you willing to pay 40% more for your Nike's? Or how about that $1500 refrigerator now costing $2500?

And no, I don't think unions are evil.

unions created what was the american middle class. was, as in corporations
setting up nonunion shops and driving down wages and benefits. the consumer based economy is very much a shell game. people keep buying stuff they don't need because it is such a great "deal" as in dirt cheap. before walmart things were very different. things cost what they were worth. they were built to last, not break and get a new one all the time. china has a whole host of issues they need to tackle. a lot of poverty for one.

 

[Anonymous]

unions created what was the american middle class. was, as in corporations
setting up nonunion shops and driving down wages and benefits. the consumer based economy is very much a shell game. people keep buying stuff they don't need because it is such a great "deal" as in dirt cheap. before walmart things were very different. things cost what they were worth. they were built to last, not break and get a new one all the time. china has a whole host of issues they need to tackle. a lot of poverty for one.

The question is one of value. What are people willing to pay for item X?

 

[buckwheat]

Ok, then why would anybody work for Fedex?

Many reasons; psychological, economic. They could be the best of a bad lot. Kind of faint praise.

I was praising your initiative in another post; you run your own business. Not everyone has that ability and it should be rewarded but no man is an island either and you depend on your employees and your customers.

If everyone could run a 4 minute mile, it wouldn't be much of an accomplishment. That doesn't mean one can fault the 10 minute milers for being lazy and undisciplined. They might be able to get down to an 8, a 7, or 6 minute mile, but there are limits for everyone.

At some point Fedex would have to compete for labor, no?

The labor market now seems to be tilted in favor of the employer.

I agree with you on the need for balance, 100%.

I also agree with you on O'Neill. Polticians on both sides are corrupt and in many cases they are incompetent as well. I distrust politicians like you distrust corporate ceo's (I don't trust them either).

Maybe I have trust issues...

In fairness, you probably think there are honest politicians and I know there are honest CEO's. From personal experience, I've worked for 3 large corporations, UPS, Computer Associates, and Fedex.

With UPS, I think the union kept management somewhat honest, Computer Associates was a largely corrupt organization, and Fedex started off with great intentions but they've strayed from their founding principles. Upper management at Fedex has been completely corrupted by money.

At Fedex you commonly hear this refrain,' Fedex is a great company once you get out of ground ops.'

Do you know what Ground Ops are? Thats the pickup and delivery of packages, the core business of Fedex. Most people within the company (who have ambition for advancement) strive to get into some area of the company which is not a part of the core business, (Ground Ops) which probably comprises about 3/4 of Fedex employees. The ambition is to get away from the pressure cooker of the company's reason for being. That's a sad commentary on the direction of the company.

 

[buckwheat]

Buffet's quote is, I think, relevent. He talks about being the enabler that allows his kids to become like Paris Hilton. BTW, I'm very familiar with the estate tax. It can be really unfair.

I don't know your personal situation with the estate tax but I do know that Buffet has not only not remained quiet on the matter, he has stated unequivocally that the tax is necessary.

As for the Heritage foundation. I think there are many ways to interpret raw data and use statistics to unfairly reinforce an interests predisposed way of thinking.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you're way off in your characterization of LBJ's attitudes and motives. The guy had many flaws but he wasn't stupid enough to denigrate a whole ethnicity as you'd have people believe and I wouldn't doubt that he may even have been a little envious of MLK's incredible gifts as a leader of all people, the world over.

Your defensiveness, pride and self promotion, are the only things I'm getting out of your last couple of posts.

Nowhere in them am I seeing the incredibly violent oppression black people experienced as a Racial group. You don't think that instituionalized racism until 1964 and more subtle racism afterwards have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today?

Congratulations, you were poor but you made it! Your concescension is shining brightly.

President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."

--Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

"Son, when I appoint a ni*ger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ni*ger."

President Lyndon B. Johnson

“I’ll have them ni*gers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”

Circa 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s vow after he signed into law civil rights legislation.

...uh....yea, I'm WAY off on Johnson...

Now, as to the questions you ask. All I will say is that you have assumed much and read things into my posts that are not there. Of course I recognize the effects of racism. I also recognize the effects of paternalism. Most liberals never do.

As for your barbs, you are much better at insult than you are argument...and you aren't that great at either.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh OK, so did govt housing used to be fully subsidised by your govt? In NZ, tenants always paid rent, but until about two decades ago it was cheaper than market rents.

And I'm not too worried about people leeching off of welfare either. Last time I saw the stats for NZ, a few years ago, there were only 400 long-term unemployed people in the whole country. If they really don't want to find work, or are so useless that no employer wants to hire them, or they have failed to find a job for another reason, this 400 people isn't much of a liability on the economy. It's not like this money simply disappears either, it gets spent within the economy.

If the US has such a big welfare problem compared to the typical welfare states (like those Scandinavian countries), then maybe it's because the welfare payments are too small to allow the recipients to escape poverty?

But more likely, most of the rhetoric is probably just welfare-bashing by those who resent every dollar of tax they have to pay (still a lot of this goes on in NZ). It's likely a myth that welfare keeps people poor and dependent. Countries with no welfare typically have significant percentages of their populations living in shanty towns. (Sort of like Flint, Michigan? ).

It is much easier to assume a blanket condemnation of those that do not agree with you than to recognize the truths in the arguments of those same people. You don't have to swallow the whole thing, just the parts that have validity. I am not a anti-tax crusader in any way. I believe our taxes should be higher, and that government should do so to pay for the programs it enacts instead of pretending (both sides) that there is no real cost to their policies. The mindset that there is no compromise, and that there is no merit in the positions of your opposition is just a lazy way of ignoring the weaknesses of your own arguments.

 

[patricknd]

President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. . .. I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."

--Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

"Son, when I appoint a ni*ger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ni*ger."

President Lyndon B. Johnson

“I’ll have them ni*gers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”

Circa 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s vow after he signed into law civil rights legislation.

...uh....yea, I'm WAY off on Johnson...

Now, as to the questions you ask. All I will say is that you have assumed much and read things into my posts that are not there. Of course I recognize the effects of racism. I also recognize the effects of paternalism. Most liberals never do.

As for your barbs, you are much better at insult than you are argument...and you aren't that great at either.

On the evening of March 15, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress and a national television audience. His response to the violence in Alabama was to propose a law that would "strike down restrictions to voting in all elections--Federal, State, and local--which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote." The most dramatic moment of LBJ's speech came when he invoked the anthem of the civil rights movement:

"But even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in
Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and
State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves
the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because
it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the
crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome."

another lbj quote. i don't know if you've done much reading on johnson but he's a pretty fascinating character, and hard to figure.

the great society was a failure, but it's roots were in the new deal. i think johnson wanted to be remembered in the same vein as fdr, and he saw the welfare programs as his lasting legacy, something to give the poor a way out of poverty. daniel patrick moynihan warned at the time that it would create generational welfare, and as you pointed out that was pretty much what occurred. i think at the time people in his party thought he was a heretic for his views.