Librarians, Keepers of the Liberty

I can't tell you why some Americans ... some of whom were African Americans ... fell sway to the siren song of the welfare state ... any more than I can tell you why some Americans still believe in leftist political nostrums ... and listen to leftist proselytisers ... despite the fact that leftism has been proven a resounding and devastating failure throughout the world.

You may not be old enough to remember ... but the War On Poverty began as an effort ... ultimately a disatrous one ... to help the alleged poor starving masses of "Appalachia" ... once known as hillbillies ... of the states from Virginia to Tennessee ... nearly all of whom were "white" ...

... and spread thereafter to a more national and urban clientele.

In any case ... the entire welfare state ... from handouts to housing to "jobs" programs to the abject surrender of personal liberty ... was ... and still is ... a complete disaster for anyone who partook of it. The Americans who shunned it ... became much more suuccessful and prosperous than the ones who embraced it.

Oh come on. The % of blacks on welfare was much greater than the % of whites. You are not an idiot. So the question remains: If Blacks as a whole were in such great financial shape in the 50's, why did they even need welfare?, and as a %, why did blacks fall for welfare? Quit playing stupid games.

And the Clinton adm. "got rid" of more welfare families than any Rep. president ever.

You appear to read a whole lot... Of what you WANT to read. This is deadly if you seek the truth. You will always have trouble dissecting any legitimate arguement if you read to satisfy JUST your preconceived notions. I can only conclude from my brief reading of your threads, that you would do wonders for North Korea as an artist of propaganda. They require a good mind-numbing drone of hailing one train of thought as they starve.

You are never to old to learn something.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Now here's another question for you ... do you share my anti-war sentiments ... that is ... anit-war on poverty and anti-war on drugs? And if not .. can you explain what the "exit strategy" is for these two "wars"?

Just write it without the negatives for gosh sakes. WTH are you asking?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I can't tell you why some Americans ... some of whom were African Americans ... fell sway to the siren song of the welfare state ... any more than I can tell you why some Americans still believe in leftist political nostrums ... and listen to leftist proselytisers ... despite the fact that leftism has been proven a resounding and devastating failure throughout the world.

You may not be old enough to remember ... but the War On Poverty began as an effort ... ultimately a disatrous one ... to help the alleged poor starving masses of "Appalachia" ... once known as hillbillies ... of the states from Virginia to Tennessee ... nearly all of whom were "white" ...

... and spread thereafter to a more national and urban clientele.

In any case ... the entire welfare state ... from handouts to housing to "jobs" programs to the abject surrender of personal liberty ... was ... and still is ... a complete disaster for anyone who partook of it. The Americans who shunned it ... became much more suuccessful and prosperous than the ones who embraced it.

Oh come on. The % of blacks on welfare was much greater than the % of whites. You are not an idiot. So the question remains: If Blacks as a whole were in such great financial shape in the 50's, why did they even need welfare?, and as a %, why did blacks fall for welfare? Quit playing stupid games.

And the Clinton adm. "got rid" of more welfare families than any Rep. president ever.

You appear to read a whole lot... Of what you WANT to read. This is deadly if you seek the truth. You will always have trouble dissecting any legitimate arguement if you read to satisfy JUST your preconceived notions. I can only conclude from my brief reading of your threads, that you would do wonders for North Korea as an artist of propaganda. They require a good mind-numbing drone of hailing one train of thought as they starve.

You are never to old to learn something.

LOL. He's busy looking up the right response. Please hold.

ooops ... will re-do

Originally Posted by pgardn

So the question remains: If Blacks as a whole were in such great financial shape in the 50's, why did they even need welfare?, and as a %, why did blacks fall for welfare? Quit playing stupid games.

And the Clinton adm. "got rid" of more welfare families than any Rep. president ever.

Your question is based on your misreading of my earlier post.

I said that in the 1950's black families were as stable ... or a bit more so ... as white families. I didn't say they were as affluent.

Go back and find that post ... and if you read it carefully ... I'm sure you'll agree that that's what I said.

In any case ... all individuals ... regardless of race ... who eschewed government welfare programs ... and relied on their own work and talent ... have done far, far, far better than those who bought into the fool's gold of the welfare state. You agree with that, don't you?

I can't explain why everyone does the dopey things that they do ... if I could I'd be able to explain Courtney Love to you.

And ... yes ... Wee-Wee Willie finally signed the Republicans' welfare reform legislation ... after vetoing it twice ... because Dick Morris told him that his chances for reelection were dead if he didn't.

He did the right thing for the wrong reason ... but nonetheless ... it's the results that count ... and he deserves some of the credit for the success of welfare reform.

Originally Posted by pgardn

Just write it without the negatives for gosh sakes. WTH are you asking?

Never mind ... it's off-topic.

Thanks for all your sincere, honest, and direct responses.

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Just a question. You dont have to get so offended...My God. I would imagine it would be hard to see the gray hairs.

Now, as far as "bottom feeding"- i didnt know that was your particular fetish. Man, it must be pretty gross starfishing an eighty year old guy.

Just a question for you ...

... how does a mother of two children come up with such vulgar and disgusting language?

Ez made a mild comment about that other site ... and you came back at him with the most disgusting type of vulgarity. Why? Were you thinking of your little baby girl when you typed those utterly gross comments?

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

He was banned over at the "whiners forum" due to a bunch of narrow minded hero worshipping idiots thinking they got their feelings hurt. I can't figure out why you banned him, as you continue to refer to him on a daily basis, and keep the other whiners updated as to his posts on this forum.

Ez

Very simple, Ez ... their inferiority complexes ... and the utter lack of wit and style over there in my absence ... compel them to trail me around ... desperately looking for something meaningful to fill their empty, bitter lives.

But you're smart enough to already know that ... so I'm hardly adding anything to your wealth of knowledge.

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

He was banned over at the "whiners forum" due to a bunch of narrow minded hero worshipping idiots thinking they got their feelings hurt. I can't figure out why you banned him, as you continue to refer to him on a daily basis, and keep the other whiners updated as to his posts on this forum.

Ez

U are the only one doing that Punter. No one cares over there. U are the only one who brings him up.
Whens the wedding?

Originally Posted by rockhardtenfan

U are the only one doing that Punter. No one cares over there. U are the only one who brings him up.

Somehow ... I tend to believe Ez on this one ...

... no ... make that I completely believe Ez on this one.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Your question is based on your misreading of my earlier post.

I said that in the 1950's black families were as stable ... or a bit more so ... as white families. I didn't say they were as affluent.

Go back and find that post ... and if you read it carefully ... I'm sure you'll agree that that's what I said.

In any case ... all individuals ... regardless of race ... who eschewed government welfare programs ... and relied on their own work and talent ... have done far, far, far better than those who bought into the fool's gold of the welfare state. You agree with that, don't you?

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

Now if you do answer the above, I think eventually you would come around to understanding my very first statement on this thread that caused an uproar, but which I firmly believe to be true... Even today, but not as much so as in the past.

I will agree that many of the ways the welfare system was set up based on Lyndon Johnson's dreams turned out to be a disincentive to work. I think it was well meaning, but horribly thought out. I do believe certain government programs are still needed to help people get a start. But no government program should be a disincentive for able bodied people to work. I believe working and making your way in a society, helps one cherish the benefits we do have in this country. But clearly some people need a leg up, and once they have the means, they are on their own. Churches, charities, etc... can only do so much.
I think people that reaped huge financial rewards have a duty to do everything they can to help the country that allowed them to make these gains. Like Gates and Buffet. But I dont think the government should make people do what Gates and Buffet had done.

Originally Posted by pgardn

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

Now if you do answer the above, I think eventually you would come around to understanding my very first statement on this thread that caused an uproar, but which I firmly believe to be true... Even today, but not as much so as in the past.

I will agree that many of the ways the welfare system was set up based on Lyndon Johnson's dreams turned out to be a disincentive to work. I think it was well meaning, but horribly thought out. I do believe certain government programs are still needed to help people get a start. But no government program should be a disincentive for able bodied people to work. I believe working and making your way in a society, helps one cherish the benefits we do have in this country. But clearly some people need a leg up, and once they have the means, they are on their own. Churches, charities, etc... can only do so much.
I think people that reaped huge financial rewards have a duty to do everything they can to help the country that allowed them to make these gains. Like Gates and Buffet. But I dont think the government should make people do what Gates and Buffet had done.

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

The only one who really needs a "leg up" ... is a short jockey trying to get on the back of a tall horse.

And Gates and Buffet are intelligently doing what they're doing in order to avoid having the government confiscate their wealth. Do away with the thieving outrage known as the death tax ... wherein the government confiscates wealth which it has already taxed over and over again ... and neither of those two highly successful men would be doing what they're doing in the way that they're doing it. They'd make much better use of their money if left to their own capacious wits without the threat of confiscation.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

The only one who really needs a "leg up" ... is a short jockey trying to get on the back of a tall horse.

And Gates and Buffet are intelligently doing what they're doing in order to avoid having the government confiscate their wealth. Do away with the thieving outrage known as the death tax ... wherein the government confiscates wealth which it has already taxed over and over again ... and neither of those two highly successful men would be doing what they're doing in the way that they're doing it. They'd make much better use of their money if left to their own capacious wits without the threat of confiscation.

So you dont think our government role extends to helping people in any way?
In other words, the government is needed to do what? Example: I consider the military a big leg up for many people. I know of a number of people that would not be where they are today without our government's military training. Why is the military controlled by the government? Why not just let proftit driven private entities run the military?

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.
Your sites dont give you the whole story. You need to have more weapons in your arsenal if you wish to argue intelligently. Those crappy biased political sites are exactly that, political sites. They do not attempt to reveal truths. Keep searching for things that fit your worldview and throw out the rest, and you will continue to handicap your ability to learn because you dont have all sides of an issue. Its up to you, old or young. If you cannot be flexible mentally, you are a great disadvantage into today's world. Good luck.

Originally Posted by pgardn

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

And you bypassed the above.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

Maybe the girls I knew in the transitional housing program who had a child or two when they were barely adults themselves, whose parents had completely failed them, who were on the streets themselves as children, who were usually molested as kids, who've overcome addictions to save their own kids, who wanted a chance but were screwed by the current system (one of the many incongruities of the current welfare reform is the rule that you can't afford childcare or be given time to look for it until you have a job...but you can't find a job until you have somewhere to put your kids...). Of course, you'll probably tell me that it's their fault they got pregnant, had bad parents, didn't have anyone to watch out for the as children, dropped out of high school, couldn't find jobs, wound up on the streets and are trying to fix their lives now with -- gasp! -- actual help from the government. Obviously, they should just spend the rest of their lives paying for their mistakes until they can do everything without any help at all, because that's the American way. And then *their* kids will end up on the streets. And you'll complain about all those poor people draining the system.

People in the social work world will tell you that Welfare to Work reforms have mostly harmed honest people who *WANT* to do better. Although I have a feeling you probably equate social work with bleeding-heart liberal socialism (my apologies if not). As far as I'm concerned, the government should definitely give people a leg-up when they need it. In my personal opinion, a lot more people need it than you think. It's certainly more important for the government to do that than some of the roles it currently fills, like prying into every aspect of our personal lives to shake its finger at "aberrant" behavior.

(Like pgarden, I consider the military to provide precisely that function. There's a reason most of my high school classmates are in the military: my hometown is poor. Most kids don't have anywhere else to go apart from the local tire stores, so guess what offers them a better opportunity?)

Thinkg about all of the people who need a "leg up" that the government assists: veterans, via the VA; victims of natural disasters, via FEMA (at least in theory); family members of those killed in action, who receive some financial support after the deaths of their loved ones; students who take out federal loans (getting smaller by the day)...most of us receive some sort of help in some way or another.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.

I honestly can't fathom that anyone would actually believe Gates and Buffet are being motivated by self-interest. Gates is possibly the most generous benefactor EVER of global health problems. His dad is a major proponent of KEEPING the estate tax (I've talked to him one-on-one a few times, so I know, but he's made very public statements in support of the estate tax).

Originally Posted by pgardn

So you dont think our government role extends to helping people in any way?
In other words, the government is needed to do what? Example: I consider the military a big leg up for many people. I know of a number of people that would not be where they are today without our government's military training. Why is the military controlled by the government? Why not just let proftit driven private entities run the military?

The U.S. military is in no way a welfare program. It exists to perform the very function for which the government exists ... that is ... to maintain the freedom of the citizens who form that government.

Those who enrol in the miltary must work very hard ... and meet exacting standards ... in order to remain there. All money and benefits accruing to military personnel is earned by them ... military salaries are not welfare payments.

Originally Posted by pgardn

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.
Your sites dont give you the whole story. You need to have more weapons in your arsenal if you wish to argue intelligently. Those crappy biased political sites are exactly that, political sites. They do not attempt to reveal truths. Keep searching for things that fit your worldview and throw out the rest, and you will continue to handicap your ability to learn because you dont have all sides of an issue. Its up to you, old or young. If you cannot be flexible mentally, you are a great disadvantage into today's world. Good luck.

You can blather all you want ... and indeed you do ...

... but the unmistakable fact is that neither Gates nor Buffet will be paying any estate taxes to the government ... all those billions of dollars have been sheltered from the government's reach.

None of us know their real motivations ... but it makes no difference .. . no matter what their motivations are ... that doesn't alter the fact that they have indeed sheltered their money from the taxman's reach.

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

I honestly can't fathom that anyone would actually believe Gates and Buffet are being motivated by self-interest. Gates is possibly the most generous benefactor EVER of global health problems. His dad is a major proponent of KEEPING the estate tax (I've talked to him one-on-one a few times, so I know, but he's made very public statements in support of the estate tax).

Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

... victims of natural disasters, via FEMA (at least in theory); ...

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?