Jump to content

Another White Guilt Post


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The comment "just give the impoverished more money" as was stated by a previous poster does nothing to help break the cycle of systemic poverty.  That is my point.

How do you know if you never try? 

Give the poor money. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Having said that it's hard to push education as a parent when you're working several jobs to just cover rent and put food on the table, don't have a history of valuing education. And the system in place in many locations put minorities in horrible learning situations so it's a systemic issue as well of course.  How we break that cycle is a difficult question.

- Guarantee safe housing/food/electricity/Internet
- Guarantee decent-paying jobs

Educational success is a lagging indicator for the health of a society. If you fix the society, the schools will just fix themselves automatically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- Guarantee safe housing/food/electricity/Internet
- Guarantee decent-paying jobs

Educational success is a lagging indicator for the health of a society. If you fix the society, the schools will just fix themselves automatically.

 

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How do you know if you never try? 

Give the poor money. 

We've been doing that for 6 decades now.  Now much money do you give someone that will make them succeed ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 11:07 AM, Catdaddyhorn said:

I see Glenn Loury has now replaced Thomas Sowell. I was wondering what yall were gonna do when he passed. 

How do you feel about Coleman Hughes?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

We've been doing that for 6 decades now.  Now much money do you give someone that will make them succeed ?

About tree fiddy. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:

How do you feel about Coleman Hughes?

When I first came across him I admired his somewhat novel approach and willingness to be objective and not adhere to any particular dogma, especially coming from a person as young as him. But as often happens with some black "intellectuals" who begin their careers bouncing to the beat of a different drummer, he, like Loury, fell in love with the accolades from conservative circles that come being "different". And now he often dismisses clear data and has a tendency to not even engage with the substance a particular argument but instead offers trite and vapid critiques as a rebuttal. Thomas Chatterton Williams is another guy who as fallen victim to the same thing. That being said, John McWhorter is a guy who I often disagree with, but manages to walk the line of adhering to his own principles while not resorting to making arguments in bad faith. Despite my issues with Loury I like listening to his podcast. 

Edited by Catdaddyhorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

When I first came across him I admired his somewhat novel approach and willingness to be objective and not adhere to any particular dogma, especially coming from a person as young as him. But as often happens with some black "intellectuals" who begin their careers bouncing to the beat of a different drummer, he, like Loury, fell in love with the accolades from conservative circles that come being "different". And now he often dismisses clear data and has a tendency to not even engage with the substance a particular argument but instead offers trite and vapid critiques as a rebuttal. Thomas Chatterton Williams is another guy who as fallen victim to the same thing. That being said, John McWhorter is a guy who I often disagree with, but manages to walk the line of adhering to his own principles while not resorting to making arguments in bad faith. Despite my issues with Loury I like listening to his podcast. 

Respect..How you felt about John was going to be my next question. 

 

I like Coleman, because he is at least willing to push back on the status quo, at times. I found him after going down a internet rabbit hole on Kendi. You and I will disagree. I feel like black intellectuals like him will fold and take the easy out(liberal/progressive ideals) when they get push back from fellow black intellectuals. Especially the bougie set. Now McWhorter is a different story because he seems to be true to his thoughts no matter which side you come from. 

Quote

But as often happens with some black "intellectuals" who begin their careers bouncing to the beat of a different drummer, he, like Loury, fell in love with the accolades from conservative circles that come being "different".

IMO, it's because the grifters and professional victims are not willing to have those discussions. It costs them money and access. Whereas , some conservatives are willing to give them a voice without pre conditions. So if you are trying to get your message out, which one are you going to choose?

 

As a side note, I listened to the Holmes/McWhorter podcast and couldn't help but think 'What took y'all so long to get here!" I feel like Ice Cube. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

IMO, it's because the grifters and professional victims are not willing to have those discussions. It costs them money and access. Whereas , some conservatives are willing to give them a voice without pre conditions. So if you are trying to get your message out, which one are you going to choose?

No. Conservatives give them a voice when AND ONLY WHEN they have accrued the required amount of black-community-scolding points. And conservatives will drop them as soon as those points stop building.

I'm not criticizing Loury or McWhorter or any of the rest of the black commentariat who wishes to see pants pulled up, just commenting on this very disingenuous portrayal of American conservatism as intellectual equanimous... which it isn't.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 11:03 AM, Catdaddyhorn said:

Given the role that government played in entrenching black poverty it stands to reason that the government should play a role in rectifying it. All these black people didn't choose to isolate themselves from greater society by happenstance. They don't live in the exact same zip codes that were redlined 100 years ago because they like the view. It was the result of purposeful policies and actions that fortified this condition. People love to talk about the measures to rectify past actions as social engineering as if we're messing with some sort of natural order of things. Somehow those very same people don't view those past discriminatory efforts to create this current condition as the original instance of social engineering that put us where we are today.

A good example I always like to reference is the difference in trajectories of institutions like banks. Take for instance the bank of Italy and how it compared to black banks that existed prior to the 30s and the establishment of the federal housing administration. Over the coming decades one category of banks received the lagniappe of an onslaught of federally subsidized loan inventory while another category of banks (black banks) were not only barred from participating in that market, but still competing with other banks that could. Prior to this policy of ""social engineering" black banks were indistinguishable from banks created by European immigrants in terms of their portfolios and impact in their communities, but afterwards the effect was demonstrable. Home loans the steel and ship workers of Pittsburg were suddenly qualified for were not available to the black doctors, educators, and lawyers of Atlanta. Mind you, all this was taking place as black migrants from the south came to the north looking work. As blacks arrived in mass they not only suffered from the restriction of housing inventory as whites were being subsidized with home loans. They suffered under a perverse set of constraints that saw them paying more to RENT their dilapidated housing in densely populated slums than their white counterparts were paying to OWN their newly subsidized homes. And let's not even get into the centers for commerce those housing loans created as businesses sprang up to cater to all these newly subsidized housing subdivisions, creating even more loan inventory for the banks that serviced them. How does this not qualify as social engineering when one group of people are forbidden from taking part while another flourishes through government subsidization?  Oh by the way, that Bank of Italy that I mentioned at the beginning of my rant is now called Bank of America. 

I think you meant¬†CNBC not Bank of America ūüėõ

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

Respect..How you felt about John was going to be my next question. 

 

I like Coleman, because he is at least willing to push back on the status quo, at times. I found him after going down a internet rabbit hole on Kendi. You and I will disagree. I feel like black intellectuals like him will fold and take the easy out(liberal/progressive ideals) when they get push back from fellow black intellectuals. Especially the bougie set. Now McWhorter is a different story because he seems to be true to his thoughts no matter which side you come from. 

IMO, it's because the grifters and professional victims are not willing to have those discussions. It costs them money and access. Whereas , some conservatives are willing to give them a voice without pre conditions. So if you are trying to get your message out, which one are you going to choose?

 

As a side note, I listened to the Holmes/McWhorter podcast and couldn't help but think 'What took y'all so long to get here!" I feel like Ice Cube. 

When Coleman Hughes appeared on that initial 1776 commission I was disappointed in him. I believed he'd have a little more self-worth than to appear on a blatantly reactionary commission that offered absolutely 0 intellectual substance. UT prof John Butler, whom I know personally, is another person I was disappointed in as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No. Conservatives give them a voice when AND ONLY WHEN they have accrued the required amount of black-community-scolding points. And conservatives will drop them as soon as those points stop building.

I'm not criticizing Loury or McWhorter or any of the rest of the black commentariat who wishes to see pants pulled up, just commenting on this very disingenuous portrayal of American conservatism as intellectual equanimous... which it isn't.

charlie-murphy-wrong.gif?w=360&f=1&nofb=

You are telling me what you think/feel. Let's leave your emotions out of this.

 

Comprehension..I said 'some' for a reason. Conservatives like Sonny Johnson and Maj Toure have a extremely important voice. And they get plenty of airtime.  There are plenty more besides them. So just because they don't show up on on Fox doesn't mean they don't exist. Expand your circle.

Edited by Brothahorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Kmele Foster is another person I disagree with, who from what I've seen makes good faith arguments. But too many black conservatives are basically Candace Owens, but with the ability to write pretty words. And despite putting them into the category in this specific case because of some of their comments on race Hughes and McWhorter wouldn't describe themselves as conservatives. 

Edited by Catdaddyhorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Kmele Foster is another person I disagree with, who from what I've seen makes good faith arguments. But too many black conservatives are basically Candace Owens, but with the ability to write pretty words. 

Never heard of him or didn't know who he was when listening/reading.

 

I guess it must be me, but I don't get the Candace angst. She is a lightweight(former democrat obviously). Like I said earlier, she wishes she had the 'street cred' that you attribute to her. In a debate with SJL or Cardi B, of course she will shine. But that's it. Sonny and Star would roast her.

 

WRT, professor Butler? I only know him through others. Is is something he said or did while on the panel? Or simply being on the panel?

 

Meant to say it earlier but Dr. Sowell and Dr. Williams will never go out of style. Don't hate the truth ūüôā

 

Quote

Hughes and McWhorter wouldn't describe themselves as conservatives. 

Nope. And nothing wrong with that. They are closer to the type of Democrat I was raised by. Not the whiny, soy, victim you see/read about today.

Edited by Brothahorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

We've been doing that for 6 decades now.  Now much money do you give someone that will make them succeed ?

We don’t give much money. We give services and subsidies. Not the same thing

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

The day conservatives begin using terms like social engineering to describe the racist policies that caused the problems to begin with will be the day that I might actually believe their takes are made in good faith. 

I think that projects and subsidized housing were well-intentioned and not some form of insidious "social engineering."  From a physical standpoint, the ghettos and slums projects replaced were horrible.  Apparently from a sociological standpoint, less so.

One strange thing was the policy that only single-parent households qualified, which sometimes caused black fathers to "sneak in," and sometimes when caught, make the entire family ineligible for subsidized housing.  I suppose that policy was driven by a desire to help the most helpless, but it sure had some unintended consequences.

If anything, subsidized housing seems to demonstrate the unintended consequences of well-intentioned government housing policy.  It seems like we were slow to pick up on the things wrong with "projects."  And we proliferated the damned things all over the country before figuring out that they were basically disasters.

I have mentioned it before, but the Bon Ton neighborhood around Bexar Street south of downtown seems to be a microcosm of bad housing policy, but seems to have been redeemed.  It was a god-awful area dominated by the Turner Courts projects and dilapidated single-family rentals.  They recently razed the projects and  built a conventional apartment complex and a bunch of single-family homes and townhomes there.  They've been there long enough (2012) to get fucked up if they were going to, but they haven't.  It's a pleasant neighborhood now.  And perhaps most importantly, there is a small working farm at its southern end that provides a small farmers market and restaurant that gives employment and food to the neighborhood.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We don’t give much money. We give services and subsidies. Not the same thing

If I may, the services need to be equal. Giving me a 70/30 beef patty is not the same as a 100% beef patty. 

 

Now if I have the opportunity to choose 70% over 100%, then we are on the same page. Opportunity/choices matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that projects and subsidized housing were well-intentioned and not some form of insidious "social engineering."  From a physical standpoint, the ghettos and slums projects replaced were horrible.  Apparently from a sociological standpoint, less so.

One strange thing was the policy that only single-parent households qualified, which sometimes caused black fathers to "sneak in," and sometimes when caught, make the entire family ineligible for subsidized housing.  I suppose that policy was driven by a desire to help the most helpless, but it sure had some unintended consequences.

If anything, subsidized housing seems to demonstrate the unintended consequences of well-intentioned government housing policy.  It seems like we were slow to pick up on the things wrong with "projects."  And we proliferated the damned things all over the country before figuring out that they were basically disasters.

I have mentioned it before, but the Bon Ton neighborhood around Bexar Street south of downtown seems to be a microcosm of bad housing policy, but seems to have been redeemed.  It was a god-awful area dominated by the Turner Courts projects and dilapidated single-family rentals.  They recently razed the projects and  built a conventional apartment complex and a bunch of single-family homes and townhomes there.  They've been there long enough (2012) to get fucked up if they were going to, but they haven't.  It's a pleasant neighborhood now.  And perhaps most importantly, there is a small working farm at its southern end that provides a small farmers market and restaurant that gives employment and food to the neighborhood.

I learned a lot about the history of public housing in this really excellent documentary covering the Pruitt-Igoe projects in St. Louis. I highly recommend.

http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/

It looks like it can also been watched for free on Pluto TV.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

I learned a lot about the history of public housing in this really excellent documentary covering the Pruitt-Igoe projects in St. Louis. I highly recommend.

http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/

It looks like it can also been watched for free on Pluto TV.

 

That's exactly where I got that.  It was an eye-opener.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that projects and subsidized housing were well-intentioned and not some form of insidious "social engineering."  From a physical standpoint, the ghettos and slums projects replaced were horrible.  Apparently from a sociological standpoint, less so.

One strange thing was the policy that only single-parent households qualified, which sometimes caused black fathers to "sneak in," and sometimes when caught, make the entire family ineligible for subsidized housing.  I suppose that policy was driven by a desire to help the most helpless, but it sure had some unintended consequences.

If anything, subsidized housing seems to demonstrate the unintended consequences of well-intentioned government housing policy.  It seems like we were slow to pick up on the things wrong with "projects."  And we proliferated the damned things all over the country before figuring out that they were basically disasters.

I have mentioned it before, but the Bon Ton neighborhood around Bexar Street south of downtown seems to be a microcosm of bad housing policy, but seems to have been redeemed.  It was a god-awful area dominated by the Turner Courts projects and dilapidated single-family rentals.  They recently razed the projects and  built a conventional apartment complex and a bunch of single-family homes and townhomes there.  They've been there long enough (2012) to get fucked up if they were going to, but they haven't.  It's a pleasant neighborhood now.  And perhaps most importantly, there is a small working farm at its southern end that provides a small farmers market and restaurant that gives employment and food to the neighborhood.

My uncle John used to live on Poplar street in South Dallas. Every year I got a week or weekend(when I started working) every visit. We were always going play dominoes in Turner Court no matter what. We always had a good time, but it was definitely on the 'don't fuck around' scale.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

We don’t give much money. We give services and subsidies. Not the same thing

Yeah fair enough.  There's a value to that though.  You get a credit card loaded with dollars to purchase groceries, that's money not sure how you get around that fact.

 

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that projects and subsidized housing were well-intentioned and not some form of insidious "social engineering."  From a physical standpoint, the ghettos and slums projects replaced were horrible.  Apparently from a sociological standpoint, less so.

One strange thing was the policy that only single-parent households qualified, which sometimes caused black fathers to "sneak in," and sometimes when caught, make the entire family ineligible for subsidized housing.  I suppose that policy was driven by a desire to help the most helpless, but it sure had some unintended consequences.

If anything, subsidized housing seems to demonstrate the unintended consequences of well-intentioned government housing policy.  It seems like we were slow to pick up on the things wrong with "projects."  And we proliferated the damned things all over the country before figuring out that they were basically disasters.

I have mentioned it before, but the Bon Ton neighborhood around Bexar Street south of downtown seems to be a microcosm of bad housing policy, but seems to have been redeemed.  It was a god-awful area dominated by the Turner Courts projects and dilapidated single-family rentals.  They recently razed the projects and  built a conventional apartment complex and a bunch of single-family homes and townhomes there.  They've been there long enough (2012) to get fucked up if they were going to, but they haven't.  It's a pleasant neighborhood now.  And perhaps most importantly, there is a small working farm at its southern end that provides a small farmers market and restaurant that gives employment and food to the neighborhood.

I don't think social engineering was meant as something insidious.  I think it was just an ignorant poorly thought thru policy. 

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

My uncle John used to live on Poplar street in South Dallas. Every year I got a week or weekend(when I started working) every visit. We were always going play dominoes in Turner Court no matter what. We always had a good time, but it was definitely on the 'don't fuck around' scale.

So seeing these mentions of South Dallas made me a little nostalgic so I pulled up google maps to see the house I spent an inordinate amount of time on the weekends at when I lived in Dallas years ago. It's on Warren and man those were some great times. I drank way too much, but that was the norm there on the weekends. A large family (Originally they came from Calvert in the mid-70's and still  have land and a house back there) all lives near each other and they often spend their weekends hanging out playing dominoes, drinking and listening to music. I have some pretty fun stories and memories from stuff I did when I was hanging out in that neighborhood for around 15 years. I always felt safe there and when I was in college I would come up on the weekends with some guys from college to play ball on the courts at Wheatley. That was also a pretty good time as well once I got past some folks there thinking I was an undercover cop instead of just someone that wanted to hoop with some pretty good ballers. I hope to visit the Sunny South before the year ends.

Edited by UpperWestside
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:

Comprehension..I said 'some' for a reason. Conservatives like Sonny Johnson and Maj Toure have a extremely important voice. And they get plenty of airtime.  There are plenty more besides them. So just because they don't show up on on Fox doesn't mean they don't exist. Expand your circle.

Comprehension... I was talking about conservative outlets (owned, operated, and edited by white people; almost universally funded by a handful of white billionaires) only giving black voices a megaphone when those black voices have accrued the black-scolding points I referenced above.

I explicitly said I wasn't making commentary about the black voices themselves, only the conservative outlets that promote them.

You are just wrong to say that these conservative outlets promote black voices "without pre conditions". It's not about my feelings, it's about that statement of yours being demonstrably false.

I'm my criticizing MY people. The ones who built a stage in the shape of Odin's rune. We aren't going to let Sonnie and Maj sit on that rune if they're going to say something that actually threatens our position.

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Comprehension... I was talking about conservative outlets (owned, operated, and edited by white people; almost universally funded by a handful of white billionaires) only giving black voices a megaphone when those black voices have accrued the black-scolding points I referenced above.

I explicitly said I wasn't making commentary about the black voices themselves, only the conservative outlets that promote them.

You are just wrong to say that these conservative outlets promote black voices "without pre conditions". It's not about my feelings, it's about that statement of yours being demonstrably false.

I'm my criticizing MY people. The ones who built a stage in the shape of Odin's rune. We aren't going to let Sonnie and Maj sit on that rune if they're going to say something that actually threatens our position.

We may be close to saying the same things just speaking different languages. Obviously you are speaking Russian(if you haven't sold out to the Chi-coms) and I'm speaking 'Merican. ūüôā

 

Sonny has a weekend show on XM Patriot and Maj has been a keynote speaker at CPAC. Very high profile. So you still missed.

Quote

I'm my criticizing MY people. The ones who built a stage in the shape of Odin's rune. We aren't going to let Sonnie and Maj sit on that rune if they're going to say something that actually threatens our position.

1. Why are you going out of your way to criticize your own people when it isn't necessary? You're wrong, just deal with it. Trying to be anything else is just being fake/phony. And it does nothing to help. Your heart may be in the right place, but your feelings are wrong. Purpose of this thread, actually.

 

2. Okay Sarah Silverman. Seeing Nazi symbols whenever it fits your political narratives. Unless you have affidavits for what the stage symbol is, stop making it something that you want it to be. I don't know what it is, you don't either.

Edited by Brothahorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

So seeing these mentions of South Dallas made me a little nostalgic so I pulled up google maps to see the house I spent an inordinate amount of time on the weekends at when I lived in Dallas years ago. It's on Warren and man those were some great times. I drank way too much, but that was the norm there on the weekends. A large family (Originally they came from Calvert in the mid-70's and still  have land and a house back there) all lives near each other and they often spend their weekends hanging out playing dominoes, drinking and listening to music. I have some pretty fun stories and memories from stuff I did when I was hanging out in that neighborhood for around 15 years. I always felt safe there and when I was in college I would come up on the weekends with some guys from college to play ball on the courts at Wheatley. That was also a pretty good time as well once I got past some folks there thinking I was an undercover cop instead of just someone that wanted to hoop with some pretty good ballers. I hope to visit the Sunny South before the year ends.

Ever get a chance to play ball at Cobb? I made it to the sideline one time . After watching them up close, I realized that a 5'11" 110lb forward wasn't going to have much success. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Comprehension... I was talking about conservative outlets (owned, operated, and edited by white people; almost universally funded by a handful of white billionaires) only giving black voices a megaphone when those black voices have accrued the black-scolding points I referenced above.

I explicitly said I wasn't making commentary about the black voices themselves, only the conservative outlets that promote them.

You are just wrong to say that these conservative outlets promote black voices "without pre conditions". It's not about my feelings, it's about that statement of yours being demonstrably false.

I'm my criticizing MY people. The ones who built a stage in the shape of Odin's rune. We aren't going to let Sonnie and Maj sit on that rune if they're going to say something that actually threatens our position.

The only pre condition I’ve noticed is that you don’t have to have any talent at all if you’re willing to be Jesse Lee Peterson or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:

... and Maj has been a keynote speaker at CPAC. Very high profile. So you still missed.

CPAC is where the Nazi replacement symbol stage was built.

 

Quote

1. Why are you going out of your way to criticize your own people when it isn't necessary?

Because I disagree with you regarding its necessity.

Quote

2. Okay Sarah Silverman. Seeing Nazi symbols whenever it fits your political narratives. Unless you have affidavits for what the stage symbol is, stop making it something that you want it to be. I don't know what it is, you don't either.

Maybe I know my people better than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

CPAC is where the Nazi replacement symbol stage was built.

 

Because I disagree with you regarding its necessity.

Maybe I know my people better than you do.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah fair enough.  There's a value to that though.  You get a credit card loaded with dollars to purchase groceries, that's money not sure how you get around that fact.

 

 

Nah, it's not.  It's scrip that can be used to purchase certain approved items at certain approved outlets.  Don't know what it is about Surly right now but there's a lot of posters who are mixed up about what money is.  A C-note is money. The LoneStar card is not. 

TANF is actual cash to poor people.  And that program is seriously tiny.  There are fewer recipients of actual cash assistance today than in 1960-- in absolute numbers, not percentages. 

That difference is directly relevant to the policy prescriptions you're hearing on this thread. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Nah, it's not.  It's scrip that can be used to purchase certain approved items at certain approved outlets.  Don't know what it is about Surly right now but there's a lot of posters who are mixed up about what money is.  A C-note is money. The LoneStar card is not. 

TANF is actual cash to poor people.  And that program is seriously tiny.  There are fewer recipients of actual cash assistance today than in 1960-- in absolute numbers, not percentages. 

That difference is directly relevant to the policy prescriptions you're hearing on this thread. 

It's basically a credit card, you pick an (approved for purchase) item off the shelf, you swipe the card, and walk out with that item.  Please explain how you didn't just make a purchase. Whether it's actual green backs or not, you've made a purchase, and you didn't have to pay for it with your own money .  You're splitting hairs a bit here. Approved items for sure, but it's still a purchase, a transaction, and someone else made that purchase possible.  

Putting $200 or $300 cash in many peoples hands who have issues beyond being just poor is a recipe for even more waste, potential violence, and fraud endemic in the system as it is.  

Exactly what is the alternative ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's basically a credit card, you pick an (approved for purchase) item off the shelf, you swipe the card, and walk out with that item.  Please explain how you didn't just make a purchase. Whether it's actual green backs or not, you've made a purchase, and you didn't have to pay for it with your own money .  You're splitting hairs a bit here. Approved items for sure, but it's still a purchase, a transaction, and someone else made that purchase possible.  

Putting $200 or $300 cash in many peoples hands who have issues beyond being just poor is a recipe for even more waste, potential violence, and fraud endemic in the system as it is.  

Exactly what is the alternative ?

 

The Lone Star card takes money away from the tax payer and then transfers it to grocery stores (and food producers) with the government and poor people as an intermediary. There is money on both ends, but the poor person does not receive money. You are correct that it's harder to "waste" or used for "fraud."  It also can't be saved.  It can't pay down a debt. It can't be used to fix a car so you can get to work. It can't be used to buy a new set of interview clothes.  It can't be used towards getting a hairdressing license.  It is nothing at all like a credit card. At best, it allows you to spend some money on those things by defraying other costs, with a whole lot of inefficiencies and incentives for irresponsible use built into the system (you will always spend your full allotment by the end of the year because if you don't it goes *poof*, for instance). 

I won't argue that the research is unambiguous but some of it has been done in developing countries. It requires one to set aside the assumption that poor people don't know what do with money and are only interested in wasting it or stealing it. It's a lot easier for us to do that when we look at foreigners as opposed to the poor people around us. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/12/02/781152563/researchers-find-a-remarkable-ripple-effect-when-you-give-cash-to-poor-families

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

 

I won't argue that the research is unambiguous but some of it has been done in developing countries. It requires one to set aside the assumption that poor people don't know what do with money and are only interested in wasting it or stealing it. It's a lot easier for us to do that when we look at foreigners as opposed to the poor people around us. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/12/02/781152563/researchers-find-a-remarkable-ripple-effect-when-you-give-cash-to-poor-families

 

I love it when people tell me national health care will never work in America because it only works in those foreign countries because "they are homogenous."

A) They are not as homogenous as these people think; and

B) Why the fuck does that matter? I love to watch them squirm when they try to answer that question without just coming out and saying they don't want darker-skinned people enjoying "free" healthcare on their dime. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I love it when people tell me national health care will never work in America because it only works in those foreign countries because "they are homogenous."

A) They are not as homogenous as these people think; and

B) Why the fuck does that matter? I love to watch them squirm when they try to answer that question without just coming out and saying they don't want darker-skinned people enjoying "free" healthcare on their dime. 

There is a relation between homogeneity and social programs, but its not what those voices think.  It's not that mechanisms or programs themselves "can't work", its that it is indeed easier to marshal political will and popular support for those programs when there's a high level of homogeneity and social cohesion.  And even in Scandinavian social welfare states, you're starting to see consensus for the programs erode as the diversity in those societies climbs. But it's not an indictment of the schemes themselves, just more evidence that people everywhere are less inclined to help 'the other."

I am also fascinated that "I don't want poor people buying cigarettes with my money" trumps "I don't want massive, inefficient bureaucracies" every time. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Black republicans were always confusing, but current black republicans are fucking mind bottling. 

America is a beautiful place where everyone of every race can be mean, stupid, and/or insular!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a relation between homogeneity and social programs, but its not what those voices think.  It's not that mechanisms or programs themselves "can't work", its that it is indeed easier to marshal political will and popular support for those programs when there's a high level of homogeneity and social cohesion.  And even in Scandinavian social welfare states, you're starting to see consensus for the programs erode as the diversity in those societies climbs. But it's not an indictment of the schemes themselves, just more evidence that people everywhere are less inclined to help 'the other."

I am also fascinated that "I don't want poor people buying cigarettes with my money" trumps "I don't want massive, inefficient bureaucracies" every time. 

It's not really homogeneity that provides what you speak of, but it's related.  The latest research indicates that those countries with very successful socialistic programs have a high degree of trust among citizens.  Much higher than the US.  That makes it easier to muster the political will to do these things because they have more empathy and a greater degree of confidence that their disadvantaged citizens will do the right things with what they are given.

Some of that trust no doubt stems from the historical cultural and ethnic homogeneity of those countries, which has changed fairly dramatically in the last few decades.   It will be interesting to see if that level of trust holds as they permit more immigration.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not really homogeneity that provides what you speak of, but it's related.  The latest research indicates that those countries with very successful socialistic programs have a high degree of trust among citizens.  Much higher than the US.  That makes it easier to muster the political will to do these things because they have more empathy and a greater degree of confidence that their disadvantaged citizens will do the right things with what they are given.

Some of that trust no doubt stems from the historical cultural and ethnic homogeneity of those countries, which has changed fairly dramatically in the last few decades.   It will be interesting to see if that level of trust holds as they permit more immigration.

That bolded section cannot be over looked. Trust or distrust is always easier among a group of similar people, meaning it's always easier to get a consensus among people who have a shared experience culturally, racially, etc.  The size of gov't also plays a role. The larger, more anonymous, less responsive it gets the easier it is for trust to erode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's basically a credit card, you pick an (approved for purchase) item off the shelf, you swipe the card, and walk out with that item.  Please explain how you didn't just make a purchase. Whether it's actual green backs or not, you've made a purchase, and you didn't have to pay for it with your own money .  You're splitting hairs a bit here. Approved items for sure, but it's still a purchase, a transaction, and someone else made that purchase possible.  

Putting $200 or $300 cash in many peoples hands who have issues beyond being just poor is a recipe for even more waste, potential violence, and fraud endemic in the system as it is.  

Exactly what is the alternative ?

Give them money with no restrictions.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That bolded section cannot be over looked. Trust or distrust is always easier among a group of similar people, meaning it's always easier to get a consensus among people who have a shared experience culturally, racially, etc.  The size of gov't also plays a role. The larger, more anonymous, less responsive it gets the easier it is for trust to erode.

And also, one party making a concerted effort to make the government less effective over the last 40 years will do much to harm trust. It's the GOP playbook, writ large

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And also, one party making a concerted effort to make the government less effective over the last 40 years will do much to harm trust. It's the GOP playbook, writ large

Grow up, and buy more than one T-shirt....

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

The Lone Star card takes money away from the tax payer and then transfers it to grocery stores (and food producers) with the government and poor people as an intermediary. There is money on both ends, but the poor person does not receive money. You are correct that it's harder to "waste" or used for "fraud."  It also can't be saved.  It can't pay down a debt. It can't be used to fix a car so you can get to work. It can't be used to buy a new set of interview clothes.  It can't be used towards getting a hairdressing license.  It is nothing at all like a credit card. At best, it allows you to spend some money on those things by defraying other costs, with a whole lot of inefficiencies and incentives for irresponsible use built into the system (you will always spend your full allotment by the end of the year because if you don't it goes *poof*, for instance). 

I won't argue that the research is unambiguous but some of it has been done in developing countries. It requires one to set aside the assumption that poor people don't know what do with money and are only interested in wasting it or stealing it. It's a lot easier for us to do that when we look at foreigners as opposed to the poor people around us. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/12/02/781152563/researchers-find-a-remarkable-ripple-effect-when-you-give-cash-to-poor-families

 

One of the great things to come out of Andrew Yang's presidential run is the discussion about what real live cash does for people as opposed to credits and allocations to buy specific items. You've highlighted some of the stress relievers real cash can deliver and how it helps people better plan for their future and moving out of poverty. It's interesting the arguments from the "I know how to better use my money crowd" doesn't consider that poor people might know something about how to use money to better themselves as well. 

 

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There is a relation between homogeneity and social programs, but its not what those voices think.  It's not that mechanisms or programs themselves "can't work", its that it is indeed easier to marshal political will and popular support for those programs when there's a high level of homogeneity and social cohesion.  And even in Scandinavian social welfare states, you're starting to see consensus for the programs erode as the diversity in those societies climbs. But it's not an indictment of the schemes themselves, just more evidence that people everywhere are less inclined to help 'the other."

I am also fascinated that "I don't want poor people buying cigarettes with my money" trumps "I don't want massive, inefficient bureaucracies" every time. 

We don't even have to look to other countries to see how homogeneity increases political will to help your fellow citizen. We can stay right here in the good ole US of A. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/06/states-with-more-black-people-have-less-generous-welfare-benefits-study-says/

Quote

How much cash welfare assistance families in poverty receive largely depends on where they live, with welfare eroding in every state except Oregon during the past 20 years, according to a new study by the Urban Institute. 

The study, released Tuesday, unveils wide racial and geographic disparities in how states distribute cash welfare, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Two decades after President Bill Clinton carried out the welfare overhaul that created TANF, states with a larger share of African Americans tend to have less generous welfare benefits and more restrictive policies, the study found.

These states also have shorter periods of eligibility for assistance, stricter requirements to maintain benefits and more severe sanctions for people who don’t abide by state welfare rules.

.....................................................

Today, for every 100 poor families in America, just 24 families receive cash assistance, compared with 64 in 1996. Only a quarter of TANF money now goes toward cash payments, down from 71 percent in 1997. Instead, states increased their TANF spending on promoting work activities, providing child care and preschool education, and offering other services not limited to low-income families.

State welfare policies subject all families, regardless of their race, to the same rules.

But the majority of black people live in states with the lowest proportion of families receiving cash assistance. African Americans are at a practical disadvantage as a result of that population distribution, Hahn said.

‚ÄúThe effects of these policies are not race neutral because we aren‚Äôt geographically dispersed evenly by race,‚ÄĚ she said.

A poor family in Vermont, where 94 percent of residents are white and only 1 percent are black, is 20 times as likely to receive welfare as compared with if that same family lived in Louisiana, where 61 percent are white and nearly a third of residents are black, according to a previous analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Vermont has the most generous welfare benefits of all 50 states, with 78 out of every 100 families in poverty receiving cash assistance. In comparison, Louisiana, the least generous state, gives welfare cash assistance to only four out of every 100 poor families. 

The disparity does not end there. Vermont offers a maximum monthly benefit of $640 to a family of three, and allows families earning up to $1,053 to qualify for cash assistance. Louisiana only offers a maximum cash benefit of just $240 a month, and families must make less than $360 a month to qualify.

In other words, a family must be the poorest of the poor to qualify for cash assistance in Louisiana, and even then, they would only receive less than half of what Americans living in Vermont would get.

What accounts for the geographic differences? States have long had different policies, philosophies and cultures about supporting low-income families, Hahn said.

The racial differences stem from the fact that cash welfare, when it began in the 1800s as a local responsibility, was essentially limited to white widows, she said.

.......................................................................

The Urban Institute study found that racial composition had a greater influence on the generosity of a state's welfare program than factors such as economics, political leanings of the state legislature, or average educational attainment of its residents.

A 5 percentage point increase in the African American share of the state population correlates with an average decrease in monthly welfare benefits of more than $25.

‚ÄúThe racial composition of a state's population might directly drive decision-making by moderating public perceptions of the causes of welfare dependency and influencing policymakers,‚ÄĚ the report said. ‚ÄúIf voters or policymakers perceive people receiving welfare as different from themselves, they may believe that welfare dependency is caused more by personal shortcomings than by circumstances beyond one‚Äôs control.‚ÄĚ

 

Edited by Catdaddyhorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not really homogeneity that provides what you speak of, but it's related.  The latest research indicates that those countries with very successful socialistic programs have a high degree of trust among citizens.  Much higher than the US.  That makes it easier to muster the political will to do these things because they have more empathy and a greater degree of confidence that their disadvantaged citizens will do the right things with what they are given.

Some of that trust no doubt stems from the historical cultural and ethnic homogeneity of those countries, which has changed fairly dramatically in the last few decades.   It will be interesting to see if that level of trust holds as they permit more immigration.

The problem in the US is many/most of us think poor people are poor because they made bad choices. Most people are poor because they were born to poor parents. And while their parents may have made bad choices, odds are the parents were born into poverty as well. And if you’re (not you Twice) going to say well don’t have kids, I agree but that means easy to access reliable birth control, and abortion services if you aren’t ok w society helping the kids once they are born. There is a subset of substance abuse/dependence and mental illness, but that (should be) a different issue 

I’m probably paraphrasing but MLK said if you want to end poverty give poor people money. The worry that he could unite poor and working class people across racial lines probably had as much to do with his assassination as his push for racial equality 

Link to post
Share on other sites
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...