No mental health issue in america.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

DPM wasn't saying welfare in general was the reason behind the deterioration of the family structure

"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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

moment of clarity?

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

many have twisted DPM's intent...

.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

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