It's an exact Moynihan quote. Not what someone else wrote. Can't wait to see you explain that away...

I'm worried about him...maybe he needs a little time off...maybe go for a dog sled ride and see the northern lights or something :hihi:

Jim, read the report, it's taken out of context. The criticism wasn't about welfare in general, it was about a program that biased benefits in situations where the parents were cohabitating but not married creating a disencetive for the mother to marry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is the relevant section of a Wikipedia article that is fairly neutral on the subject, not as balanced toward Republican influence as it should be, but Wikipedia often slants left on political subjects so this is about as fair as Wikipedia gets:

"After World War II, during the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the old argument that all whites had to stick together to prevent civil rights legislation lost its force because the legislation had now been passed. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.[1]
The New Deal program of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) generally united the party factions for over three decades, since Southerners, like Northern urban populations, were hit particularly hard and generally benefited from the massive governmental relief program. FDR was adept at holding white Southerners in the coalition[2] while simultaneously beginning the erosion of Black voters away from their then-characteristic Republican preferences. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s catalyzed the end of this Democratic Party coalition of interests by magnetizing Black voters to the Democratic label and simultaneously ending White control of the Democratic Party apparatus.[3] A series of court decisions, rendering primary elections as public instead of private events administered by the parties, essentially freed the Southern region to change more toward the two-party behavior of most of the rest of the nation.
In the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956 Republican nominee Dwight David Eisenhower, a popular World War II general, won several Southern states, thus breaking some white Southerners away from their Democratic Party pattern. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term “Solid South” to describe the states’ Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably. Goldwater won many of the “Solid South” states over Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, himself a Texan, and with many this Republican support continued and seeped down the ballot to congressional, state, and ultimately local levels. A further significant item of legislation was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which targeted for preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice any election-law change in areas where African-American voting participation was lower than the norm (most but not all of these areas were in the South); the effect of the Voting Rights Act on southern elections was profound, including the by-product that some White Southerners perceived it as meddling while Black voters universally appreciated it. The trend toward acceptance of Republican identification among Southern White voters was bolstered in the next two elections by Richard Nixon.
Denouncing the forced busing policy that was used to enforce school desegregation,[4] Richard Nixon courted populist conservative Southern whites with what is called the Southern Strategy, though his speechwriter Jeffrey Hart claimed that his campaign rhetoric was actually a “Border State Strategy” and accused the press of being “very lazy” when they called it a "Southern Strategy".[5] In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the power of the federal government to enforce forced busing was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the discretion to include busing as a desegregation tool to achieve racial balance. Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Of the known Dixiecrats, only three switched parties becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin, Jr. In the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley decision, however, the ability to use forced busing as a political tactic was greatly diminished when the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on Swann and ruled that students could only be bused across district lines if evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed.
In 1976, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter won every Southern state except Oklahoma and Virginia in his successful campaign to win the Presidency as a Democrat, but his support among White voters in the South evaporated amid their disappointment that he was not the yearned-for reincarnation of Democratic conservatism besides ongoing economic problems. In 1980 Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan won overwhelmingly in most of the South.[b]
Losing the South[edit]
In 1980, the Southern Strategy would see fruition when Ronald Reagan announced that he supported states rights and that welfare abuse justified the need for it.[6] Lee Atwater, who served Reagan's chief strategist in the Southern states, claimed that by 1968, a vast majority of southern whites had learned to accept that racial slurs like "nigger" were very offensive and that mentioning "states rights" and reasons for its justification had now become the best way to appeal to southern white voters.[7]

With race less important, economic and cultural conservatism (especially regarding abortion) became more important in the South, with its large religious right element, such as Southern Baptists.[8] The South became fertile ground for the GOP, which was becoming more conservative as it shed its liberal "Rockefeller Republican" faction. The large black vote in the South was solid for liberal Democrats. Well-established Democratic incumbents, however, still held sway over voters in many states, especially in Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate (although not huge) number of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. By the mid-1990s, however, the political value of the race card was evaporating and many Republicans began to court African Americans by playing on their vast dedication to Christian conservatism.[9]
Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are sizable numbers of Conservative Democrats who cross party lines and vote Republican in national elections.[10]
Dr. Ralph Northam, a Democrat and the 2017 Democratic nominee for Governor of Virginia has admitted that he voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.[11] Despite this admission, Northam, a former state Senator who has served as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia since 2014 easily defeated the more progressive candidate, former Congressman Tom Perriello, by 55.9 percent to 44.1 percent to win the Democratic nomination.[12]
A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats. An Interesting exception has been Arkansas, whose state legislature has continued to be majority Democrat (having, however, given its electoral votes to the GOP in the past three Presidential elections, except in 1992 and 1996 when "favorite son" Bill Clinton was the candidate and won each time) until 2012, when Arkansas voters selected a 21–14 Republican majority in the Arkansas Senate.
Another exception is North Carolina. Despite the fact that the state has voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1980 until 2008 the governorship (until 2012), legislature (until 2010), as well as most statewide offices, it remains in Democratic control. The North Carolina congressional delegation was heavily Democratic until 2012 when the Republicans had occasion, after the 2010 United States census, to adopt a redistricting plan of their choosing. The current Governor is Roy Cooper, a Democrat.
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President. Unlike Carter, however, Clinton was only able to win the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia. While running for President, Clinton promised to "end welfare as we have come to know it" while in office.[13] In 1996, Clinton would fulfill his campaign promise and the longtime GOP goal of major welfare reform came into fruition. After two welfare reform bills sponsored by the GOP-controlled Congress were successfully vetoed by the President,[14] a compromise was eventually reached and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was signed into law on August 22, 1996.[13]
During Clinton's Presidency, the southern strategy shifted towards the so-called cultural war, which saw major political battles between the Religious Right and the secular Left. Southern Democrats still did and do see much support on the local level, however, and many of them are not nearly so liberal as the Democratic party as a whole. Southern general elections in which the Democrat is to the right of the Republican are still not entirely unheard of.[15]
Chapman notes a split vote among many conservative Southern Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s who supported local and statewide conservative Democrats while simultaneously voting for Republican presidential candidates.[16] This tendency of many Southern whites to vote for the Republican presidential candidate but Democrats from other offices lasted until the 2010 midterm elections. In the November 2008 elections, Democrats won 3/4 the U.S. House delegation from Mississippi, 3/4th of the U.S. House delegation from Arkansas, 5/9th of the U.S. House delegation from Tennessee, and achieved near parity in the U.S. House Delegation from Georgia and Alabama. Nearly all white Democrats in the South lost reelection in 2010, however. In the November 2010 elections, Democrats won only one U.S House seat in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas and two out of nine House seats in Tennessee. The Democrats later lost its one Arkansas seat in 2012. Following the November 2010 elections, there was only one white Democratic representative in the Deep South (John Barrow of Georgia), and he lost reelection in 2014. Democrats lost control of the North Carolina and Alabama legislatures in 2010, the Louisiana and Mississippi legislatures in 2011 and the Arkansas legislature in 2012. In 2014, the last damage occurred when Democrats lost 4 U.S. senate seats in the South (in West Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Louisiana) that they had previously held. In 2015, Democrat John Bel Edwards, was elected governor of Louisiana. In 2017, Democrat Doug Jones was elected Senator from Alabama, breaking the Democratic losing streak in Alabama"

Here's a shorter version by a Black political science professor at Vanderbilt University:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

I don’t disagree that’s why I said not in a day. I could spend a semester explaining the politics of the last half century and ten times that discussing. But I think LBJs administration was the turning point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the study...."The steady expansion of this program, as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States." Daniel Patrick Moynihan


I've lost count of how many times Spence has claimed a "quote" was "taken out of context" and then proceeded to offer a version of what was said or written which had little or no resemblance to what was actually said or written....:rolleyes:

The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.

And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.

As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more

Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...


The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.

Why is the union entitled to a cent of my money, if I don’t want to give it to them? And why, when union membership becomes voluntary, do so many people opt out?

I was a public schoolteacher a million years ago. I know a little bit about public unions. They could teach the mafia a few things about greed and corruption and strong arm tactics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do realize he's just a paid political troll don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm going to try and be patient with your reading comprehension challenges.

DPM wasn't saying welfare in general was the reason behind the deterioration of the family structure, but rather that increasing reliance on it was a "measure" of the problem. His entire reasoning for writing the piece was to piggyback on the Civil Rights movement and lobby LBJ to increase Federal assistance programs even to the point of creating government jobs to increase employment.

I know it's easy to cherry pick a single sentence, misinterpret it and then base 50 years of talking points about it. I get it. It's also wrong.

Moynihan made the case that there’s a strong connection between the nuclear family and economic stability within that family. Decades of liberal policies in heavily poor and heavily black precincts, don’t show me a lot of progress in that regard. It shows me that Moynihan was obviously correct, and that modern liberalism is going in the opposite direction, providing financial incentives for black teenagers to have babies, and further incentives for young mothers to not marry the fathers, and promoting an addiction to welfare. From where I sit, its not working out so great.

And for suggesting a different approach we are labeled racist, and people like Zimmy thoughtlessly buy into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The steady expansion of of this program, as of public assistance programs in general.. can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

actually he said "disintegration"....it's tough to misinterpret that quote but you are trying mighty hard...are you a paid troll?

He would have argued part of the problem was not enough government assistance for a group so disadvantaged by slavery and discriminatory policy.

Disintegration and deterioration are synonyms.

Let's try this another way. Why would someone spend their entire scholarly career promoting the benefit and need of welfare only to point to it as the root cause of societal deterioration?

Right, it doesn't make any sense.

right because he would naturally argue part of the problem was not enough government assistance after stating that the steady expansion of government assistance was the problem...

are you OK?...you are having a tough week and it's only Tuesday

moment of clarity?

he was savaged by many on the left for the report and celebrated by many on the right, including the guy that you wrongly attributed the quote to and described as a "hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."


I appreciate that many things don't make sense to you in Spenceworld

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

It was a controversial piece for sure and many have twisted DPM's intent...doesn't change the fact that it's a single point in a long and pretty consistent thought process.

I don 't know who is worried about what you post, I'm certainly not one who is worried about you post, certainly not worried about this typically uninformative, incoherent, irrelevant, useless, and rather ignorant response to what I said.

But carry on because "some here" are shivering with worry over what hallucination you might sputter out next.

He warned of the dangers of the evolving liberal view of what welfare should be - send people checks just for breathing, bigger checks for having babies, even bigger checks for having babies without a father. He was afraid (correctly as it turned out) that this would further erode the black nuclear family, which would be a full-blown catastrophe.

He, like every sane person, believed in the concept of a safety net for those who cannot lift themselves up. I have never heard anyone of any party argue against this, not once, ever.

He was in favor of welfare, as long as it didn't provide financial incentives for creating more fatherlessness.

well, exact quotes don't make sense to you either...

keep telling yourself that...this is a mental heath thread after all....

Mostly wrong. His piece in 1965 had nothing about an evolving liberal view. In the 60's DPM believed that black men would never overcome the effects of the last century unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability. This would mean financial assistance and even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary.

You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published?

"unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability."

That's my point, and his. Making huge numbers of people so addicted to welfare that it robs them of initiative and the desire to stand on their own two feet, does more harm than good.

Democrats disagree with that, despite stupefying and tragic volumes of empirical evidence. So which side is racist, and why?

"even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary"

Now you sound like a Tea Party conservative. Conservatives want them to work. Liberals apparently want to rob them of their desire to work, and get them addicted to receiving welfare checks. I mean, I saw the Democrats at the SOTU sitting on their hands with scowls on their faces, when Trump announced historically low black unemployment. Why is that not worth celebrating? I cannot wait for your answer, I'm all a-twitter.

"You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published"

You have read his stuff, and you pretend that he didn't say the things he clearly said, which don't serve your agenda. I know a lot about DPM. I know it was a disaster that HRC took his seat, that was not a trade up.

I take it, then, that the government didn't help lift them to a point of stability. Or, if it did, whatever it did has made them more unstable.

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab

it's pretty clear that you've never read the report....

Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.

As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab






that was a fascinating statement...apparently the unions are the employers?

To join the local rifle club I had to join the NRA, I wasn't happy about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually Liberals and Conservatives only like choice if you agree with them.
Liberals tend to believe that government should have limted authority over your private life and behavior. Liberals expect more government authority over peoples' wealth and earnings and more regulation of businesses.

Conservatives tend to expect more government authority over morality and more regulation of your behavior. Conservatives prefer limited government authority over peoples' financial matters and prefer less regulation of businesses.

Authoritarians prefer government with a significant control of your personal and economic matters and over businesses.
Though they disagree on specifics: authoritarians, conservatives, and liberals all expect government to "protect" people by forcing consenting adults to avoid risky, dangerous and foolish behavior that does not harm or endanger others.

Libertarians believe that government's role is to preserve personal and economic freedom -- including those of "minorties" -- and that government-provided "protection" should only include defense against foreign enemies, holding people who cause harm accountable, and providing for general order.

you had a choice you could pay an agancy fee but it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services that negotiated the pay rate with the employer ..

So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country .. if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits...

The right fear unions because those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that ... and they wont be as rich as the want to be

"it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services "

Wrong.

In the teachers union, pay is based on tenure. So all teachers with masters degrees who have been there ten years, get the same exact pay. So the guy teaching AP Physics and goes above and beyond for his kids, gets paid exactly the same as the gym teacher who goes home when the bell rings.

The best teacher and the worst teacher get paid the same. That benefits the worst teacher, and penalizes the best teacher. That seems backwards to me, but makes all kinds of sense to the union.

If people choose not to be in the union, they should not benefit from collective bargaining. Let them negotiate their own pay and benefits.

I want to be paid based on my worth, not the average worth of everyone in my job. Don't people who do a better job, deserve more money?

"So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country"

Ummm...I pay a ton in taxes, rather than draining the system? That doesn't make me a better person, it makes me a more valuable citizen in terms of cash flow.

"if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits"

As I said, those who don't pay into the union, should have to negotiate on their own. They shouldn't benefit if they don't pay i8nto it. The bets workers, can do better negotiating on their own. "Collective bargaining" treats everyone the same, it does not differentiate within the collective. So top performers can do better, negotiating on their own.

"The right fear unions "

Hating something and fearing it, are not the same thing.

"those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that "

You are assuming that you'll make more in a union. If you are a top performer, you'll do better outside of a union. Most people in the private sector are not in a union, most get a decent wage, IF they acquire marketable skills and work hard.

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.

Ok, find where and give data that contradicts it, specifically your nonsense about lower birthrates due to higher rates of abortion.

You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically- the point of 1950's levels, though many desperately want to make America something it never was again . It shows the changes over a long period of time, which is beneficial for analyzing data. Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?