is the new deal partly to blame for baltimore's riots

[/dev/null]

the ghettos were not an accident. read the article. romney's daddy knew it. he tried to undue the damage. never happened. places like levvitown might have lifted many more up if not for segregationists. yes, it was a long time ago. and roosevelt himself may have felt that the leittowns were meant for white only…but i doubt it.

I dunno who's batschit crazier

 

Leftists who think that white people abandon the cities they built for a chuckle when the negros who follow them fail, or the Ancient Aliens® crowd

[IDBillzFan]

I think the main problem with poverty overall is mainly due to broken homes. Too many dead beat dads are skipping out on doing the right thing, which obviously creates a void in the child's life and the role models that many of these kids look up to are either losers or music/sports stars that they will most undoubtedly never become.

 

Change the culture, if true dad's begin to step up, poverty will decrease.

 

I don't know why so many liberals have such a hard time accepting this single truth. When you have dead beat Dads banging up welfare moms, the parenting void is filled by gangs. Education becomes secondary to those with no guidance, and all the left can do is scream that they need more money without ever once acknowledging that their welfare incentive programs play a significant role in keeping inner-city minorities as their political slaves.

[DC Tom]

 

I don't know why so many liberals have such a hard time accepting this single truth. When you have dead beat Dads banging up welfare moms, the parenting void is filled by gangs. Education becomes secondary to those with no guidance, and all the left can do is scream that they need more money without ever once acknowledging that their welfare incentive programs play a significant role in keeping inner-city minorities as their political slaves.

 

But...lead paint!

[ExiledInIllinois]

the ghettos were not an accident. read the article. romney's daddy knew it. he tried to undue the damage. never happened. places like levvitown might have lifted many more up if not for segregationists. yes, it was a long time ago. and roosevelt himself may have felt that the leittowns were meant for white onlybut i doubt it.

Just a little information about my backyard:

 

And that was my point about Park Forest. They tried very hard to go the route of the Levittowns, segregation failed there. Maybe it was "white flight." Levittown/Park Forest were all starter type homes, lower income, returning GI towns. They were the first in the country. You probably never heard of Park Forest. It is right up there historically with the Levittowns. I just looked @ the demographics for the Levittowns, it is amazng people didn't move on to bigger "better" digs like they did here. Does geography on the East Coast have something to do with it? That is, absence of suburban sprawl. ??

 

Just a note... Olympia Fields is another village suburb right next to Park Forest, that has been around since the 1920's... 1927 to be exact. They contract out their services with Park Forest Library that my wife runs. OFields is predominately affluent, anything but "starter" homes (like back in the day, w/returning GI's in Park Forest)... AND THE SHOCKER (not really a shocker) is OFields is mainly African-American (52-42%)... Heck, in 2003, Olympia Fields even hosted the US Open (@ Iron's Oaks). How "white" is golf and the US Open... LoL... Demograpgics similar with the village of Matteson, Illinois right next to them... That's split right down the middle. Matteson and OFields were Illinois Central RR towns when created. Park Forest was truly "planned" right out of the swampy marsh and New Deal! Planned just like the Levittowns back east.

 

I guess in the MidWest there is more upward mobility, even with New Deal towns. What's the deal (pun intended), how did the segragationist win on the East Coast? Why? Was it room to spread out? But... Things are pretty diverse right here in my backyard. Why did one New Deal town fail to jump start upward mobility and the other did better? Though... Park Forest (pop.25k) still has many poor elements, extreme poverty areas. YET, in the 1980's University Park, Illinois split off from Park Forest (used to be called Park Forest South)... University Park is mainly a working class town. Not affluent like OFields, yet, w/out the extreme poverty of Park Forest or say Ford Heights (closer to Chicago Heights, IL). University Park is majority AA. I am not sure what those demos are, but you can look it up.

Edited May 8, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois

[OCinBuffalo]

I think the main problem with poverty overall is mainly due to broken homes. Too many dead beat dads are skipping out on doing the right thing, which obviously creates a void in the child's life and the role models that many of these kids look up to are either losers or music/sports stars that they will most undoubtedly never become.

 

Change the culture, if true dad's begin to step up, poverty will decrease.

1. Don't forget the other side of the argument: there are just as many dead beat moms. These moms not only get pregnant themselves, as way to entrap men into paying them $ for 18 years, they also encourage their daughters to get pregnant as teens. As I've said numerous times: LBJs "great society" == a business model. For women, who don't want to work, or, rightly, have a man around beating them/telling them what to do, or, wrongly, enforcing discipline in the household, it's a way to get by.

 

Millions of men can tell you the story about the women they've met looking to get knocked up on purpose, who have 0 interest in family, and expect the dad to do nothing other than write the checks.

 

So, I ask you: do you really think this is solely about "true dad's" stepping up, or do we need to stop pretending that every single mother is a victim? Caveat: Understand, I work in health care, so I am surrounded by women( ), and many of them are single moms. But, they are the first to point out, unsolicited, who is playing the LBJ game and who isn't.

 

2. Teachers and principals are often left to fill the roles of both dad and mom.

 

That's not their job. However, supposedly "objective" methodologies like Common Core do not have adjustments for "kid comes to school with bed bugs", or, "kid comes to school without change of clothes or having bathed in 3 weeks", or, "kid purposely acts up in late spring, and fails on purpose, because summer school == 2 square meals a day".

 

Once again: the "free" this and "free" that? Even an 8 year old can learn how to manipulate the system, when the alternative is starvation.

 

That's why I will say it again: instead of an "earned income tax credit" we need a "child debit", for both parents who are below income X. For every child you have, you start out each year with $X. For each instance of "being unprepared to learn" or cirminal behavior, both parents lose $. This means child support goes into escrow, and can be fined by the school district for every instance of bad parenting.

 

If we do that, somehow I feel the bad dads and moms will amazingly be much more attuned to their responsibilities.

Edited May 8, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[LeviF]

 

So, I ask you: do you really think this is solely about "true dad's" stepping up, or do we need to stop pretending that every single mother is a victim?

 

This. If you think men are the only problem, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Tiberius]

So racism causes more racial problems. No way! The New Deal had to rely on racist southern politicians and that got added into the programs and caused problems latter. Color me surprised

 

Regarding the highlighted. You know this how?

Probably because he knows some history that went right over your head

[Tiberius]

I think the main problem with poverty overall is mainly due to broken homes. Too many dead beat dads are skipping out on doing the right thing, which obviously creates a void in the child's life and the role models that many of these kids look up to are either losers or music/sports stars that they will most undoubtedly never become.

 

Change the culture, if true dad's begin to step up, poverty will decrease.

Yes, no argument there, but, better housing, clearner environment and jobs are all part of creating a new culture. Sadly, they have not worked.

 

And really, a strong police force, arresting violent criminals and trying to stop drug abuse are also part of changing culture but this all seems to go round and round in a circle.

 

How do you suggest the culture of poverty be changed?

[GG]

I understand what you are getting @ yet you are looking @ the warts, not the overall picture. We are still leaps and bounds ahead then where we would be. As a whole, we live a lot better life in 2015 than in 1935. I mean, there are the warts, but there is no denying our overall quality (@ the expense of some, isn't that how it always is) of life is way better. You honestly think a more free market would have reached these goals in such a short time (under a 100 years)?

 

Again, have little idea of what you're yammering about, but try reading the linked article. The implication is that low income whites were given the opportunity to participate in a free market economy through home ownership in planned communities, while blacks were shepherded into socialist ghettos of government housing projects.

[Chef Jim]

Probably because he knows some history that went right over your head

Awww gator found a friend. Isn't that cute.

[Dante]

 

This. If you think men are the only problem, I have a bridge to sell you.

I think it's the main building block to a strong family. From a strong family comes stability and better people with focus and a purpose. They want to please their fathers, mothers and sibling rivalry motivates. Simple things. I don't think it's the entire answer but it is the main one. Problem is there is a external effort to destroy the family. Illegitimacy subsidized. Homosexuality promoted and even celebrated. Designed to disenfranchise people and make them dependent and pliable to the state. After all, if your a good person from a strong family what do you need government for?

[LeviF]

I think it's the main building block to a strong family. From a strong family comes stability and better people with focus and a purpose. They want to please their fathers, mothers and sibling rivalry motivates. Simple things. I don't think it's the entire answer but it is the main one. Problem is there is a external effort to destroy the family. Illegitimacy subsidized. Homosexuality promoted and even celebrated. Designed to disenfranchise people and make them dependent and pliable to the state. After all, if your a good person from a strong family what do you need government for?

 

I largely agree with you, the father is a driving unit in the family, and a lot of "dads" do walk out or just never show up. But thanks to feminism, a ****ty family court system, and the way benefit programs are structured, we have an entire generation of women who believe that strong, steadfast men are a problem or barrier, not a solution. As OC said, a lot of men who would be glad to be fathers in the real sense are used for sperm and cash by women who have no interest in doing hard work or raising a good family and partnering with a good man to that end. A lot of these men are lucky if they end up getting a couple of weekends a month with their kids, no matter how good of a father they might be.

[Chef Jim]

 

How do you suggest the culture of poverty be changed?

Create an environment of opportunity for a life away from poverty stricken areas. Oh wait.....

 

BTW interesting you used the word culture. A culture is created and maintained by those within that culture. It's typically not created and maintained by outside forces.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Chef Jim

[Tiberius]

Create an environment of opportunity for a life away from poverty stricken areas. Oh wait.....

BTW interesting you used the word culture. A culture is created and maintained by those within that culture. It's typically not created and maintained by outside forces.

 

Really? So slaveholders didn't shape slaves culture? Jim crow didn't shape how blacks lived?

[birdog1960]

 

Again, have little idea of what you're yammering about, but try reading the linked article. The implication is that low income whites were given the opportunity to participate in a free market economy through home ownership in planned communities, while blacks were shepherded into socialist ghettos of government housing projects.

exactly. nice summation. but even more than that: if they played their cards right and sold out after the neighborhoods gentrified (and exiled point is that not all did), they stood to collect a gov't enabled windfall that could go towards upward mobility through education that blacks were never given the opportunity to receive.

Edited May 8, 2015 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

Really? So slaveholders didn't shape slaves culture? Jim crow didn't shape how blacks lived?

You have anything more recent than a 150 years ago?

[Dante]

 

I largely agree with you, the father is a driving unit in the family, and a lot of "dads" do walk out or just never show up. But thanks to feminism, a ****ty family court system, and the way benefit programs are structured, we have an entire generation of women who believe that strong, steadfast men are a problem or barrier, not a solution. As OC said, a lot of men who would be glad to be fathers in the real sense are used for sperm and cash by women who have no interest in doing hard work or raising a good family and partnering with a good man to that end. A lot of these men are lucky if they end up getting a couple of weekends a month with their kids, no matter how good of a father they might be.

I think you said it better than I did. I forgot to add feminism. I thought of it after. I think the job of a great, stay at home mom has been minimized by feminism.

[LeviF]

You have anything more recent than a 150 years ago?

 

To play gator's advocate, many of those slaves were not allowed to learn how to read or write. We're five generations removed from black folks who were prohibited by law from learning pretty much anything besides picking cotton. Fast forward to 1900 and still only 50% of black men aged 20-64 can read and write. By 1930 about 20% of all blacks aged 10 and up are illiterate. It's considerable improvement, but we're only about 70-75 years removed from a full fifth of the black population not being able to read or write.

 

It is not surprising, then, that many blacks, and the impoverished as a whole, continue to live in a way that makes middle-class white people raise their eyebrows. Their way of thinking about things is vastly different from the way you or I may think. You and I are future-oriented in our thinking. We invest, save, prioritize around the future. Our parents raised us to think about the future, it's all we know. The impoverished as a whole are present-oriented. Their lives revolve around what they and their kids are going to eat tomorrow, where they'll find decent winter coats and boots for this winter, where the money for utility bill that's due next week is coming from, etc. Everything is prioritized around the present out of necessity. Kids fall in with gangs and the drug trade because they provide immediate safety and financial security. They won't live to see 30, but hey, at least they'll have friends and some cash.

 

So the way to change culture is to change thinking. The benefit and safety net type programs are in place so that impoverished folks can worry less about the present and invest and work hard towards the future. But there's no incentive or motivation to work and invest towards the future if there's no education and no end to the benefits in sight. They keep thinking about the present and often never even see a way out even though it's there for them.

[birdog1960]

I think you said it better than I did. I forgot to add feminism. I thought of it after. I think the job of a great, stay at home mom has been minimized by feminism.

do you carry a club and drag women around by the hair?

[DC Tom]

do you carry a club and drag women around by the hair?

 

That's the problem with "feminism" for the past 20 years. It's ONLY discussed from the extremes.