No more God Bless America?

[John317]

Even though the New Deal destroyed the black family...? More like the "Raw Deal."...

President Lyndon Johnson's "war on proverty" did much the same thing. I know he had the best of intentions, but ironically his program actually helped create and perpetuate poverty and certainly did damage to black families by encouraging fathers to get out of the home.

[lazarus]

Perspective:

“First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?” --Pat Buchanan

That above stated: of those 40,000,000 Americans - it can be justly said that the great majority of them are rightly respected and contributing Americans: deserving to remove from their hyphenated designation or status. The era of the fractionalized citizen is a thing of the past, and rightly so. Those who agitate with such as

cursing this nation with a Gd-d*** should be immediately censored - without equivocation. The curse mirrors the man, in my humble opinion.

One errs in thinking criticism translates to ‘ist-‘ism or to prejudice.

“Cynicism is an unpleasant way of telling the truth” – Lillian Hellman

Keep posting this stuff. teehe

[lazarus]

Quote:

Name a recent President, or presidential candidate that was or is a good bible student?

George W. Bush participates in a Bible study every day in the White House with staffers. Members of the media report it is common to see staffers walking in the halls with a Bible after such meetings. Not sure the last President that did that before this one.

would love to see the sources for that info. Can you post them?

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: olger

Even though the New Deal destroyed the black family...? More like the "Raw Deal."...

President Lyndon Johnson's "war on proverty" did much the same thing. I know he had the best of intentions, but ironically his program actually helped create and perpetuate poverty and certainly did damage to black families by encouraging fathers to get out of the home.

Where's the evidence that the new deal destroyed the black family. Whats the evidence that certain program encouraged fathers to leave famiies. Let me see some info please.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

George W. Bush participates in a Bible study every day in the White House with staffers.

would love to see the sources for that info. Can you post them?

The Faith Of George W. Bush

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Where's the evidence that the new deal destroyed the black family. Whats the evidence that certain program encouraged fathers to leave famiies. Let me see some info please.

I have not seen any evidence the New Deal harmed black families. However there is a lot of evidence The Great Society programs have done a lot of harm. Walter Williams, a black economist and political commentator, has written extensively about that.

[Kountzer]

Originally Posted By: D_Bishop

... what if Obama or some other candidate was SDA, and was involved in a very hot and contested campaign, and someone from the national media heard an sda pastor preach about the 2 horned beast of revelation 13, that started speaking like a dragon in the latter days?... DB

I think that would be great IF it would help spread the truth about the Bible's end-time prophecies. There are SDAs in politics who do believe in those prophecies. Jerry Pettis, a US Congressman from California in the 60s and 70s, used to preach those doctrines as an evangelist, but in those days the national media didn't even mention it. I'm sure there are SDAs in congress and serving at various levels of state and local government who believe them today and go to a church that believes and teaches these things.

But to believe what the Bible and Ellen White say regarding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation is far different from believing what Wright was preaching.

Perception is reality. If the majority of socieity believes that your msg is dangerous, then to them it is dangerous. Jeremy Wright has probably been saying what he says for 25 years or more. Now, all of a sudden, what he says is dangerous. Same holds true for sda doctrine.

[Woody]

Quote:

His wife is a zealous supporter of Unnatural (homosexual) marriage.

My sympathies to you in not being able to get your wife to tow the line. It must make life difficult for you.

[olger]

Olger says "You are bringing my wife into this conversation for what purpose?"

I would not say such things if I were you.

Sincerely,

oG

[Woody]

Ummm. I think it was you that brought your wife into the conversation. I just quoted you.

[olger]

Please provide the reference.

oG

[Woody]

Ah ... You really don't want me to go there.

As you did ... I will gracefully back out.

Blessings to you Olger .... Hope your EASTER is going well.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

President Lyndon Johnson's "war on proverty" did much the same thing. I know he had the best of intentions' date=' but ironically his program actually helped create and perpetuate poverty and certainly did damage to black families by encouraging fathers to get out of the home. [/quote']

Where's the evidence that the new deal destroyed the black family. Whats the evidence that certain program encouraged fathers to leave famiies. Let me see some info please.

I wouldn't say it destroyed the the black family but as I said above, it has done damaged to it. Since the reform in 1996, there has been improvement in the welfare system over what it was from the 1960s and onwards.

Here is some of the info you requested, just for a start:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-0684%281987%2936%3A3%3C36%3APTWS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was the name of a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1997, which was administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The program was created under the name Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) by the Social Security Act of 1935 as part of the New Deal; the words "families with" were added to the name in 1960, partly due to concern that the program's rules discouraged marriage. By 1996 spending was $24 billion per year. When adjusted for inflation, the highest spending was in 1976, which exceeded 1996 spending by about 8%.

....Criticisms of AFDC included: (A) there were relatively lax time limitations for participation in the program; ( that the program encouraged child birth to trigger or prolong benefits, and the suggestion that this had a dysgenic effect on the US population; © there were few incentives to join or rejoin the workforce, as entry level jobs could not provide the standard of living provided by AFDC; (D) AFDC benefits for most families fell short of lifting families above the poverty line; (E) other unintended social consequences.

Evidence for these claims can be found in the work of Charles Murray, who suggested that welfare causes dependency. He argued that as welfare benefits increased, the number of recipients also increased; this behavior, he said, was totally rational, because why work if one can receive benefits for a long period of time without having to? While this ideology drove policy, the data, is not entirely clear. States with the most generous welfare policies have the fewest recipients and vice versa. For instance, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama have relatively restricted welfare policies; these states have higher rates of welfare recipients than Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other states with more liberal welfare policies. However, welfare policy is only part of these liberal states' diverse social programs, and the southern states face very different demographics and economic challenges.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E4D61338F93AA15754C0A9649C8B63

Side Effect of Welfare Law: The No-Parent Family

By NINA BERNSTEIN

Published: July 29, 2002

When studies last year showed that the share of the nation's children living in single-parent households had declined in the late 1990's, many welcomed the results as signs that the 1996 welfare overhaul was working.

But new research underscores a smaller, unwelcome trend: a rising share of children, particularly black children in cities, are turning up in no-parent households, left with relatives, friends or foster families without either their mother or their father.

Researchers say they cannot pinpoint the forces driving parents and children apart. But among them, they said, may be the stresses of the new welfare world -- loss of benefits, low-wage jobs at irregular hours and pressure from a new partner needed to pay the rent.

The findings are helping reopen the debate on what shifting welfare rules are doing to families. They are contributing to second thoughts among some of the most optimistic analysts, even as the White House and some lawmakers are pushing to make the welfare law's work requirements even stricter. The law now requires 50 percent of welfare recipients to work up to 30 hours a week, with some exceptions for hardship.

One important study of census data in each state, recently presented to an audience of welfare experts at Harvard, concluded that among those most affected by the welfare changes -- black children in central cities -- the share living without their parents had more than doubled on average, to 16.1 percent from 7.5 percent, when researchers controlled for other factors.

''What we're seeing is the complex relationship between this thing we call welfare reform and the impact on families,'' said Wade F. Horn, the Bush administration official who oversees the welfare program. ''In some cases we see positive effects on family structures, and in other cases we see more children living in no-parent families.''

Mr. Horn said new welfare demands might expose an unfit parent whose children are better off in foster care. On the other hand, he added, a West Virginia mother told to seek work in Ohio may feel obliged to leave a child behind to finish school.

''What it tells us,'' he said, ''is that we need to do an even better job on understanding the complexities of these programs on real people.''

In a support group in the Bronx, grandparents raising grandchildren spoke of the many pressures their families faced. Linda Woods, for example, finds it easy to understand how a decline in households with single mothers and a rise in children living apart from both parents could be two sides of a coin.

Ms. Woods's daughter, a sickly high school dropout who once worked in sales, supported her own daughter, China, on welfare after the girl's father abandoned them. Unable to work in exchange for benefits, she eventually qualified for Social Security disability payments and found a boyfriend with a job.

''She got married to him too quick,'' Ms. Woods recalled. ''I tried to tell her, 'You're making a big mistake.' '' Two years ago, she added, China, then 7, telephoned from her mother's home in Queens, begging to be rescued from conflicts with her stepfather.

Now Ms. Woods, 53 and retired because of ill health, is struggling to care for China without any public aid. China's mother, with a second child to support, has separated from her husband.

Last year, analysts at the nonpartisan Urban Institute reported that the share of children in the United States living in households without their parents rose to 3.5 percent, or 2.3 million children, in 1999, from nearly 3.1 percent, or 1.8 million children, in 1997, a significant increase.

Recently Greg Acs, an author of an upbeat Urban Institute report last year on the rise in two-adult households, titled ''Honey, I'm Home,'' took a second look at his study's unreported results and found that among low-income children, a population more likely to be affected by welfare changes, the share living with neither parent had risen to 5.7 percent in 1999, from 4.7 percent in 1997, double the overall increase.....

[John317]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860

Nearly a quarter century later, in January 1988, President Ronald Reagan delivered a State of the Union address in which he declared that the War on Poverty had failed: “My friends, some years ago, the Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” The remark brought laughter from the joint session of Congress that Reagan addressed. Yet President Reagan meant what he said that night:

Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.

That night President Reagan issued a direct conservative challenge to the heart of the liberal political agenda that had dominated the American Left since the 1930s. The government had failed to devise a program that could eradicate poverty in America. After spending trillions of dollars and creating a massive federal bureaucracy, Reagan returned to a simple but critically important theme: without strong families, the poor would never emerge from poverty. Even more damaging, Reagan directly stated that federal antipoverty programs actually functioned to destroy poor families, thereby perpetuating the culture of poverty they were trying to eliminate. Federal antipoverty programs, in Reagan’s analysis, had become part of the problem, not the solution.

Poverty in America Persists

What evidence is there to support President Reagan’s contention that we lost the War on Poverty? If we take a careful look at the statistical data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, we find ample evidence that the incidence of poverty remains disturbingly large, both as a percentage of the population and in absolute numbers. To document the point, we will have to struggle through a few paragraphs of statistical data, but the numbers are important if we are to state the case correctly.

The Census Bureau reported in August 2005 that the poverty rate in 2004 had actually increased since 2003, up to 12.7 percent in 2004 from 12.5 percent in 2003. This translated into an additional 1.1 million people in poverty, with some 37 million Americans living in poverty in 2004. The progress eliminating poverty in the forty years since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty is negligible. In 1964 the Census Bureau estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in poverty, approximately 36 million people. In that forty-year interval, poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor.

Putting the best possible face on the War on Poverty, we should note that in 1959 and 1960, before the War on Poverty began, poverty was measured at approximately 22 percent of the population, some 39 million Americans. We can argue that a reduction from 22 percent in 1959 to 12.7 percent in 2004 means that the incidence of poverty has been reduced by roughly half over the last forty-five years. Yet some 39 million Americans were counted as poor in 1959, nearly the same number as the nearly 37 million Americans counted as poor in 2004. Despite all the money and effort expended by government, a core group of poor persists, resistant to any and all efforts to remove them from the poverty rolls. It is this core group of “underclass” Americans that the War on Poverty and the political Left has failed. If the War on Poverty was meant to eliminate poverty, rather than merely reduce poverty, then a new strategy is needed..........

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I think that would be great IF it would help spread the truth about the Bible's end-time prophecies. There are SDAs in politics who do believe in those prophecies. Jerry Pettis, a US Congressman from California in the 60s and 70s, used to preach those doctrines as an evangelist, but in those days the national media didn't even mention it. I'm sure there are SDAs in congress and serving at various levels of state and local government who believe them today and go to a church that believes and teaches these things.

But to believe what the Bible and Ellen White say regarding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation is far different from believing what Wright was preaching.

[/quote']

Perception is reality. If the majority of socieity believes that your msg is dangerous, then to them it is dangerous. Jeremy Wright has probably been saying what he says for 25 years or more. Now, all of a sudden, what he says is dangerous. Same holds true for sda doctrine.

Yes, I agree with you that in the eyes of a lot of people, who don't understand the history of Christian doctrine, and who don't know Bible prophecy, these things could appear to be very similar. But the fact is that SDA understanding of most of the prophecies is in line with what almost all protestants taught from the beginning of the Reformation until about 1900.

So there is a vast difference between Bible prophecy and the writings of Ellen White in such books as GC and the ravings of Jeremy Wright that the US invented the HIV virus, that the US is no better than Al-Queda, and that blacks should pray for God to damn America, etc. One is based on solid principles of hermeneutics and is supported by the Bible and history, whereas Wright's teachings regarding the United States are not. Another important difference is that the application of the 2 horned beast of Revelation 13 to America is not made in anger, hatred or bitterness.

You're exactly right that Wright has probably been saying much the same thing for 25 years or more. This is why many are questioning why Obama chose to stay in Wright's church and why he claimed that he did not know what Wright was teaching.

The problem is not simply that Wright taught those divisive and harmful mistakes-- to use Obama's own description-- but that Obama chose to support Wright and didn't make it clear much earlier that he did not agree with Wright. The problem is that Obama waited too long before he objected to Wright's teachings. He didn't do it until he was compelled to do it because of the pressures of the campaign.

[Kountzer]

Why is Jeremy Wright an issue now? He's been a operative in the dem. party for years. Spent the night in the white house. Candidates have probably been passing through his church for years, both dems and republicans. As for why Obama didn't cut ties with him earlier, ask him. As I've mentioned, my hopes and dreams aren't tied to Obama, mine are tied to Jesus. Regarding poverty: He fed 5,000 plus with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread, & he's fed me for 52 years. Good enuf. Regarding poverty, He said that the poor you will have always, and that what you have done for the least, you have done for Him. There won't be any poverty in the New Jerusalem, racism either, praise God.

[John317]

Why is Jeremy Wright an issue now? He's been a operative in the dem. party for years. Spent the night in the white house. Candidates have probably been passing through his church for years, both dems and republicans...

As far as I can see, Jeremiah Wright is an issue now only because it appears that a Senator who may become president of the United States empowered Wright with his presence and influence for quite a few years when he should have protested and let it be known that he did not agree. As Obama said, Wright was preaching harmful and dangerously divisive things. So the problem is not that Wright was teaching these things but rather that Obama appeared to accept them even though his message is that he will bring all the races together and unify the country.

I agree wholeheartedly with your message about tying our hopes to Jesus Christ. That is the only way.

[lazarus]

I took the time to read what you posted about Welfare and black families. The pieces are much more nuanced that you suggest. In fact the articles in some places suggested that problems have been exacerbated by the changes started by Reagan and contained by Clinton.

In fact the first article indicates that TAX POLICY can be a bigger culprit that welfare itself, since "low income families face higher effective tax rates" than any other section of the population.

I couldn't get access to the full article.

The second again does not present the stark conclusions you suggest.

Quote:

Last year, analysts at the nonpartisan Urban Institute reported that the share of children in the United States living in households without their parents rose to 3.5 percent, or 2.3 million children, in 1999, from nearly 3.1 percent, or 1.8 million children, in 1997, a significant increase.

Recently Greg Acs, an author of an upbeat Urban Institute report last year on the rise in two-adult households, titled ''Honey, I'm Home,'' took a second look at his study's unreported results and found that among low-income children, a population more likely to be affected by welfare changes, the share living with neither parent had risen to 5.7 percent in 1999, from 4.7 percent in 1997, double the overall increase.....

Suppose that all of the above children are from black families, which they are not, it hardly means that the black family is destroyed.

In fact, this article in many ways supports a very different picture from the one you are suggesting. The changes effected by governments of both parties have made the situation worse.

What has 30 years of rolling back the new deal left us with? More poverty, recession, perhaps a depression?

[Bravus]

[in response to John317's long and interesting posts above]

...and yet conservatives consistently oppose (a) progressive[1] tax regimes and ( lifting minimum wages. If paying welfare does not help people lift themselves out of poverty, then those two measures certainly would help a lot. Why don't we see our 'compassionate conservatives' rallying behind them?

[1] 'progressive' in the sense of increasing rates at increasing incomes, not in the sense of socially progressive

I definitely do agree, though, that welfare policies that create incentives for splitting families are the wrong way to go, and that it's appropriate for welfare policies to actively promote family, since there is so much strong empirical research linking strong families to better outcomes on almost all measures.

[John317]

...it hardly means that the black family is destroyed...

So, after studying that small amount of material, can you honestly say that the black family has not been damaged by the welfare programs?

Notice my words earlier: "I wouldn't say it destroyed the the black family but as I said above, it has done damaged to it."

[lazarus]

Of course welfare has been damaging to some families, including black families.

To simply say that its has been damaging to black families may leave people with the impression that white/hispanic families do not receive welfare and that they are not damaged when they do receive it.

Many many many families have been helped and aided by welfare programs. Is this not so?

There needs to be more creative and empowering solutions when it comes to dealing with poverty, like the micro-credit phenomenon.

I'm tired of the offensive rhetoric (noting that it did not come from you, John) which has no basis in fact and that is devoid of any attempt to understand.

[lazarus]

Let me suggest this.

African-Americans are skeptical about america as an idea. When white Americans have talked about the American dream its has really only been something that was meant for white Americans. Notions of liberty and freedom have been reserved for white citizens only until just before I was born.

For most of American history the lofty pronouncements of the "great" men in American history have been empty words.

I remember sitting in history class and being shocked to learn about Jim Crow etc. I couldn't understand why this country, that describes itself as the land of the free kept so many of its citizens in bondage.

I loved American movies and a bunch of other stuff but making people drink from different water fountains, go to separate schools, etc. was just plain sick to me.

I grew up several thousand miles away and felt this way. I shudder to think how I would feel if my father said son "we can't eat here because were black"

Instead of saying "get over it" the Christian response would be to seek to understand, listen, seek forgiveness and healing.

[Woody]

Quote:

Instead of saying "get over it" the Christian response would be to seek to understand, listen, seek forgiveness and healing.

Great Post Laz. If ALL ... on both sides could do this and move forward in a positive way ... we would really have a great nation that Mrs. Obama could be proud of.

[John317]

[in response to John317's long and interesting posts above]

...and yet conservatives consistently oppose (a) progressive[1] tax regimes and ( lifting minimum wages. If paying welfare does not help people lift themselves out of poverty, then those two measures certainly would help a lot. Why don't we see our 'compassionate conservatives' rallying behind them?

[1] 'progressive' in the sense of increasing rates at increasing incomes, not in the sense of socially progressive

I don't think it's a matter so much of conservatives lacking compassion as the fact that they don't believe progressive tax truly helps the economy or truly helps the poor over the long term. Many conservatives believe that the best way to help the poor is through education and not by giving them money or food, but by teaching them responsibility, honesty, self-discipline and hard work. It also has to do with a philosophical difference in their point of view of the purpose of government, whether its proper role is that of taking care of the economic needs of its citizens. Conservatives generally think the government's role is to provide for individual's only those services which the citizens cannot do for themselves. They see the answer to many social problems in self-reliance, not in more government aid or interference in the private lives of its citizens. Congressman Ron Paul (whom I don't support for president) represents the conservative viewpoint of many:

Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Property should be owned by people, not government.

All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

When it comes to the issue of the minimum wage, the democrats and liberals are the ones largely in favor of raising it, as shown in some of the following news items:

1) "Gov. Ed Rendell and other members of the Democratic Party called for the state Legislature to vote on a significant increase in Pennsylvania's minimum wage last week -- a proposal that would raise the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour and eventually to $7.15 an hour by 2007."

2) "President Bush carried Florida handily last November. But there was something else on the Florida ballot that got little national attention -- an initiative to raise the state minimum wage to $6.15 an hour.

The initiative was put on the ballot by the community organizing group ACORN and a coalition of unions, MoveOn, and others with 975,000 signatures. The minimum wage initiative was opposed by nearly all Republicans and business groups.

Not only did the initiative win by a stunning 72 to 28 percent; it won in every single Florida county, even rock-ribbed Bush territory.

The Kerry campaign, hooked to a relentless message that the candidate had to identify with 'the middle class,' rejected overtures from the organizers and did not get involved. If Kerry had vigorously championed this campaign, the outcome in Florida and nationally might have been different."

I think there's no question that most of the Democratic party favors increasing the minimum wage, whereas many of the conservative Republicans have opposed increasing it.

"House Majority Leader Richard Armey, Republican of Texas, vowed to fight Democratic President Bill Clinton's proposed increase in the minimum wage with 'every fiber' of his body. Moderate Republicans, on the other hand, have not been so adamant. Although some of them reject an increase in the minimum wage as unnecessary, others have tended to argue that workers in entry-level positions deserve pay adequate enough to live on and that raising the minimum wage does not necessarily increase unemployment or inflation. Additional debate among party members has focused not on so much on whether there should be a minimum wage, but what it should be."

The following shows that there is no agreeement as to whether minimum wages should be eliminated or increased:

"A strong majority of American economists believes the minimum wage increases unemployment, though there is disagreement as to the magnitude. As a policy question in 2006, the minimum wage has to some extent split the economics profession with just under half believing it should be eliminated and a slightly smaller percentage believing it should be increased, leaving rather few in the middle.

Some idea of the empirical problems of this debate can be seen by looking at recent trends in the United States. The minimum wage fell about 29% in real terms between 1979 and 2003. For the median worker, real hourly earnings have increased since 1979, however for the lowest deciles, there have been significant falls in the real wage without much fall in the rate of unemployment. Some argue that a declining minimum wage might reduce youth unemployment (since these workers are likely to have fewer skills than older workers).

Overall, there is no consensus between economists about the effects of minimum wages on youth employment, although empirical evidence suggests that this group is most vulnerable to high minimum wages."

Quote:

I definitely do agree, though, that welfare policies that create incentives for splitting families are the wrong way to go, and that it's appropriate for welfare policies to actively promote family, since there is so much strong empirical research linking strong families to better outcomes on almost all measures.

Yes, these things should be very clear, and it was the main reason I brought up the subject of the damage welfare has done in the past to certain segments of our society, including the black family in America.

[John317]

Of course welfare has been damaging to some families, including black families.

Quote:

To simply say that its has been damaging to black families may leave people with the impression that white/hispanic families do not receive welfare and that they are not damaged when they do receive it.

My experience is that it has had a greater and more lasting damaging effect upon black families, simply because blacks generally have a harder time moving up the economic ladder. I'm not implying that the system has not also been damaging to other social groups. As someone who works with gang youth, most of my cases are blacks and hispanics, with few whites and orientals. The black kids almost always have mothers on welfare and fathers who are absent from the home. If the fathers are in the home, the mothers very often lose the benefits. To the extent that this happens, the family is hurt.

Of course, undeniably so. No one would say that welfare has never helped anyone. My only intention here is to point out that welfare programs have done great damage to certain segments of society, which includes the black family. I don't know of anyone who studies the issue who disagrees with this.

Quote:

There needs to be more creative and empowering solutions when it comes to dealing with poverty, like the micro-credit phenomenon.

I'm tired of the offensive rhetoric (noting that it did not come from you, John) which has no basis in fact and that is devoid of any attempt to understand.

I've been doing more than trying to understand. I've given basically my whole life to working with people with problems in order to help them in practical ways.