No mental health issue in america.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Just to let you know, you quoted a hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."

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

[scottw]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

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"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

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

[Pete F.]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[wdmso]

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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....

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[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 Jim in CT

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.

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

[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

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

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

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[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....