The Baltimore Democrats built
Martin O’Malley (D) says he plans to announce his presidential campaign in Baltimore. Perhaps he’ll used a burned-out police car or a looted storefront as his backdrop. The former Maryland governor and Baltimore mayor tried to blame last week’s unrest on structural problems in our economy, outsourcing and a failure to invest in infrastructure. Nice try. The fact is, O’Malley and the Democrats own Baltimore and the disaster it has become. As one resident who met O’Malley at an inner-city food drive last week put it,
“He’s walking into the aftermath of his legacy.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/t...story.html
Excellent article and they're absolutely right. We are seeing plan as day the failures of the welfare state and LBJ better society promises.
The ending is a zinger
"Reflecting on Baltimore’s dismal record, a former aide to former Mayor Kurt Schmoke told The Post “We meant well.” I’m sure they did. But meaning well is no excuse for almost 50 years of failure."
The State means well but that doesn't change the ability for it to solve market problems.
Wait, so have we thought about what would be if there were no social programs in these areas?
Are we saying that with no social welfare and government spending the situation would be better?
Sorry, I just find this article to be lacking real thought...
Quote:Wait, so have we thought about what would be if there were no social programs in these areas?
Are we saying that with no social welfare and government spending the situation would be better?
Sorry, I just find this article to be lacking real thought...
The article is pointing out that the level of welfare starting in the 1960's, is a direct reflection of that state of many inner city "ghettos" (his word not mine). The State has replaced the Father, now you could argue that might have happened anyways but we didn't start seeing the exit of the two parent family until well after the establishment of the welfare state.
Quote:Wait, so have we thought about what would be if there were no social programs in these areas?
Are we saying that with no social welfare and government spending the situation would be better?
Sorry, I just find this article to be lacking real thought...
Yes.
Yes it was.
Yes it would be.
Welfare is the problem not the solution.
Quote:The article is pointing out that the level of welfare starting in the 1960's, is a direct reflection of that state of many inner city "ghettos" (his word not mine). The State has replaced the Father, now you could argue that might have happened anyways but we didn't start seeing the exit of the two parent family until well after the establishment of the welfare state.
Come on, man. You act as though that happened in a vacuum. It didn't. I bet supply side economics has more to do with these issues than welfare and social programs...
It's just too easy to blame it all on LBJ....
These issues are more complex than that...
Quote:Come on, man. You act as though that happened in a vacuum. It didn't. I bet supply side economics has more to do with these issues than welfare and social programs...
It's just too easy to blame it all on LBJ....
These issues are more complex than that...
Supply side did that to England's white undecrlass? I did not know that.
Quote:Come on, man. You act as though that happened in a vacuum. It didn't. I bet supply side economics has more to do with these issues than welfare and social programs...
It's just too easy to blame it all on LBJ....
These issues are more complex than that...
We had supply side economics long before the 60's even during segregation which was a horrible obstacle for minority families you still had core families and far less crime. It wasn't until the incentive of a strong family was removed that we began to see the erosion of a strong family core. Note this isn't exclusive to minority families either it holds true across all ethnicities that broken homes on average hold a higher chance of poverty.
That's the point the article is trying to drive home it is the broken homes dependent on welfare instead of a core family that is a correlation to high crime and cycles of poverty.
It is a complex issue but I'd argue at the core one reality holds true, welfare as it is today has created a cycle of dependency that is extremely difficult to get out of. It punishes the ones that attempt to climb the economic ladder and rewards those that remain stagnant.
Quote:We had supply side economics long before the 60's even during segregation which was a horrible obstacle for minority families you still had core families and far less crime. It wasn't until the incentive of a strong family was removed that we began to see the erosion of a strong family core. Note this isn't exclusive to minority families either it holds true across all ethnicities that broken homes on average hold a higher chance of poverty.
That's the point the article is trying to drive home it is the broken homes dependent on welfare instead of a core family that is a correlation to high crime and cycles of poverty.
It is a complex issue but I'd argue at the core one reality holds true, welfare as it is today has created a cycle of dependency that is extremely difficult to get out of. It punishes the ones that attempt to climb the economic ladder and rewards those that remain stagnant.
So it is the idea that welfare has led to broken homes? Because that seems a little silly. Clearly the evidence shows the 1 parent homes are more likely to be under the poverty line and is a huge problem in our country. How does eliminating welfare programs keep couples together?
Quote:So it is the idea that welfare has led to broken homes? Because that seems a little silly. Clearly the evidence shows the 1 parent homes are more likely to be under the poverty line and is a huge problem in our country. How does eliminating welfare programs keep couples together?
It's the broken egg situation, you can't just eliminate them now that we've instituted them. However there's an argument to be made families where far less likely to break up when it was almost mandatory of them to remain together for financial stability.
It's a complicated issue but the State has replaced the Father as head of the house, that is really the core issue. It sounds radical, it sounds ridiculous, it even sounds paranoid but I really believe that the purpose of welfare was to create a permanent underclass and quotes from the creators like LBJ reaffirm that belief.
Quote:Come on, man. You act as though that happened in a vacuum. It didn't. I bet supply side economics has more to do with these issues than welfare and social programs...
It's just too easy to blame it all on LBJ....
These issues are more complex than that...
I agree that putting all of the blame on LBJ is misspent. His heart and desire were in the right place for that time in history. With that said, I very seriously doubt that his intent was to have government assistance for life. From what I have read and my understanding his desire was to help people out of poverty and get them to a place where they could stand on their own two feet. His legacy has been bastardized by those who seek to have a block of voters willing to do as commanded to keep them in office as long as they continue to give them more. IMO, poverty has become too comfortable for those in it to seek a way out.
Quote:So it is the idea that welfare has led to broken homes? Because that seems a little silly. Clearly the evidence shows the 1 parent homes are more likely to be under the poverty line and is a huge problem in our country. How does eliminating welfare programs keep couples together?
Welfare incentivizes out of wedlock births because single women have lower reportable household income than two parent households. Moynihan pointed this out 50 years ago and no one listened. Now the bastardy rate in the black community is over 80%. Want to know how effective marriage is in preventing poverty? The poverty rate among divorced black women has been in single digits for over 25 years. Even when the marriage doesn't work out the whole family is better off for it because the men are and often remain involved. But welfare rewards irresponsible behavior and god knows whatever the government subsidizes we get more of..
Quote:I agree that putting all of the blame on LBJ is misspent. His heart and desire were in the right place for that time in history. With that said, I very seriously doubt that his intent was to have government assistance for life. From what I have read and my understanding his desire was to help people out of poverty and get them to a place where they could stand on their own two feet. His legacy has been bastardized by those who seek to have a block of voters willing to do as commanded to keep them in office as long as they continue to give them more. IMO, poverty has become too comfortable for those in it to seek a way out.
I only disagree with the last part. It's not that poverty is to comfortable it's that pulling yourself out of it comes at greater cost. For example the way welfare is on a sliding scale if a working family takes on additional income sometimes just another 2-3k a year they see the assistance drastically reduced. That assistance might be more beneficial in the short term than the extra 2-3k they will make that year. However that next stepping stone or rung on the financial ladder has to be achieved for them to continue their gradual climb out of poverty. Coming out of poverty can be a slow process that might take a generation to achieve, but many families never even take the first step because the system is designed to discourage it.
That is the real problem, instead of creating an incentive to earn more welfare creates and incentive to keep wages as low as possible to maximize subsides unless they can double their income it hurts them to try and climb out of poverty.
Quote:It's the broken egg situation, you can't just eliminate them now that we've instituted them. However there's an argument to be made families where far less likely to break up when it was almost mandatory of them to remain together for financial stability.
It's a complicated issue but the State has replaced the Father as head of the house, that is really the core issue. It sounds radical, it sounds ridiculous, it even sounds paranoid but I really believe that the purpose of welfare was to create a permanent underclass and quotes from the creators like LBJ reaffirm that belief.
That's also assuming these families, prior to solcial welfare, were even healthy families to begin with. Though that is beside the point.
I agree with the below poster that it was never intended to create a permanent underclass. There are plenty of other political views that do that more overtly than providing assistance for those less fortunate. Did it play a hand in it? Well it sure seems that way but I don't think it was done intentionally.
Quote:That's also assuming these families, prior to solcial welfare, were even healthy families to begin with. Though that is beside the point.
I agree with the below poster that it was never intended to create a permanent underclass. There are plenty of other political views that do that more overtly than providing assistance for those less fortunate. Did it play a hand in it? Well it sure seems that way but I don't think it was done intentionally.
What about that horrible LBJ quote then, I'll paraphrase the one where he is quoted saying "I'll have these (N word) voting democrat for 200 years".
Quote:What about that horrible LBJ quote then, I'll paraphrase the one where he is quoted saying "I'll have these (N word) voting democrat for 200 years".
I do not know about that quote. I am sure that politicians attempt to create and then pander to bases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Quote:I only disagree with the last part. It's not that poverty is to comfortable it's that pulling yourself out of it comes at greater cost. For example the way welfare is on a sliding scale if a working family takes on additional income sometimes just another 2-3k a year they see the assistance drastically reduced. That assistance might be more beneficial in the short term than the extra 2-3k they will make that year. However that next stepping stone or rung on the financial ladder has to be achieved for them to continue their gradual climb out of poverty. Coming out of poverty can be a slow process that might take a generation to achieve, but many families never even take the first step because the system is designed to discourage it.
That is the real problem, instead of creating an incentive to earn more welfare creates and incentive to keep wages as low as possible to maximize subsides unless they can double their income it hurts them to try and climb out of poverty.
That is part of what I meant, you just stated it better. :thumbsup:
Quote:That is part of what I meant, you just stated it better. :thumbsup:
gotcha, I know there's different view on it out there was just expressing my take on it.