How welfare destroyed the black family and neighborhood

[Unseen]

This is not about the conservative trope that helping people financially turns then into lazy no account goodfornothings. Rather, it’s about how the the poor design and racist management of financial aid programs devastated the black community.

Perhaps what did the most damage were programs with rules that only gave money to mothers if there was no man in the house. This drove many men into the streets and a life of crime as they tried to meet unreasonably and unrealistically high child support payments.

One can only imagine how much better off black America would be today if children were raised in whole families.

[RichRaelian]

Hello! I’am sorry but I disagree with the title of this post.

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

It is good to see that others are catching up to what Professors Thomas Sowell, Milton and Rose Friedman, the Late Great Walter E. Williams, and other Free-Market Economists have been saying for decades now.

And, no, it is not “mismanagement.” Welfare Statism is doing what its intent was and take it from a retail employee, it destroys anyone and anything it touches.

RichRaelian,

I’m not sure who said it, but: “The human mind is a wonderful thing. It can think anything it wants to think.”

[PopeBeanie]

RichRaelian wrote:

Hello! I’am sorry but I disagree with the title of this post.

TheEncogitationer wrote:

I’m not sure who said it, but: “The human mind is a wonderful thing. It can think anything it wants to think.”

I don’t like the title, either. IMO the “the” in it strongly implies “every”, which of course is hyperbolic and unrealistic. Instead, “destroyed black families and neighborhoods” might be more credible. Without even clicking, you know it’ll be close to completely one-sided. I need a better reason to click on it. (Trumpers might love it.)

[_Robert_]

It seems that “no man in the house” rule was in effect for just a few years, 64-68. So yeah, how about some numbers? I’m sure single welfare moms were rolling in the dough. At first it was only granted if the father was deceased, but then it was misapplied to other cases.

I’m sure that that when some “spear-chuckers, spooks, and jig-a-boobs” (as my uncle would say) moved into the suburbs and the whites could not sell fast enough….yeah that had nothing to do with the hood situation.

Here are some fun facts:

https://moneytransfers.com/news/2022/07/13/how-many-people-are-on-welfare

The most recent SNAP report suggests that 36.5% of recipients were white in 2019. A further 25.8% of respondents were African American, while 16% were Hispanic. 1.5% of respondents identified as Native American.

Retired workers and dependents account for 75.2% of the benefits paid in 2020.
(SSA)

There are a total of six different benefits or welfare payments available to US citizens as of 2022. According to the Social Security Administration, the largest percentage of the American population on welfare are retirees and their dependents (75.2%). They receive an average monthly benefit of around $1,555 per person.

Disabled workers and their dependents accounted for only 13.1% of the benefits paid in 2020, receiving an average welfare check per month of $1,280.

 

[TheEncogitationer]

Fellow Unbelievers,

I meant to add that Milton and Rose Friedman are Late and Great too.

Thomas Sowell is still around and makes great YouTube videos, albeit not in his own voice. At age 93, it is to be expected. He is a fantastic, well-read Economist, Sociologist, Historian, and Amateur Photographer to boot and has written volumes on how Welfare Statism has institutionalized poverty and all of it’s pathologies.

[Unseen]

PopeBeanie wrote:

I don’t like the title, either. IMO the “the” in it strongly implies “every”, which of course is hyperbolic and unrealistic. Instead, “destroyed black families and neighborhoods” might be more credible. Without even clicking, you know it’ll be close to completely one-sided. I need a better reason to click on it. (Trumpers might love it.)

How dumb can people be, PB? Who would actually go to “welfare destroyed every black family and every black neighborhood” as the correct interpretation. People understand that when you use an aggregate noun, any criticism of it applies overall and not to every single instance.

How inbreeding ruined the German Shepherd. Every single German Shepherd or the breed as a whole?

How social media has ruined childhood in America. Every single child?

How the greed of the military-industrial complex has lowered American’s standard of living. Yes, of course, a few have benefited.

People who understand and use English daily as their first language are actually far more competent than you think. And of course, I mean that applied to them in the aggregate and not to every single English speaker.

People are not as stupid and needful of your expert help to determine the meaning of the title of the post as you apparently believe.

[PopeBeanie]

Unseen wrote:

People are not as stupid and needful of your expert help to determine the meaning of the title of the post as you apparently believe.

OK, it’s not you, it’s me. I sometimes go overboard on literal interpretations, but I still dislike when the lazy or possibly misleading headline could be replaced by a more literally accurate one. Like the headline I suggested.

And yeah, to be honest, I do think a lot of readers are stupid and will just jump to the wrong conclusion, which the headline writers would almost certainly be happy to see happen.

[Unseen]

PopeBeanie wrote:

And yeah, to be honest, I do think a lot of readers are stupid and will just jump to the wrong conclusion, which the headline writers would almost certainly be happy to see happen.

But, PB, are you completely oblivious of the context here? ALL of the readers will be AtheistZone members! These seem to be the people you’re afraid will misread the subject line. I’m not too worried. Why are you?

[PopeBeanie]

Unseen wrote:

ALL of the readers will be AtheistZone members!

You’re right. I misjudged, and shouldn’t have judged at all. I hate so much to see any form of clickbait, while it’s rampant and practically customary even for people who are presenting good content… and I brought that prejudice here. I’m sorry, I won’t do that again.

[Unseen]

PopeBeanie wrote:

Unseen wrote:

ALL of the readers will be AtheistZone members!

You’re right. I misjudged, and shouldn’t have judged at all. I hate so much to see any form of clickbait, while it’s rampant and practically customary even for people who are presenting good content… and I brought that prejudice here. I’m sorry, I won’t do that again.

I hate clickbait when the content is unrelated to the bait. Clever headlines are needed to drag people into the content.

[Noel]

I think it’s necessary. I also think it’s abused and I strongly feel that it’s used as a weapon by the powers that be. Think about the island territories of the US and Native American communities. Keep the people at the government teet and they won’t make trouble for fear of having their only form of income removed. I think it’s used to control. All the while complaining about “those lazy good for nothings”.

[Author]

Posts