Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
Your question is based on your misreading of my earlier post.
I said that in the 1950's black families were as stable ... or a bit more so ... as white families. I didn't say they were as affluent.
Go back and find that post ... and if you read it carefully ... I'm sure you'll agree that that's what I said.
In any case ... all individuals ... regardless of race ... who eschewed government welfare programs ... and relied on their own work and talent ... have done far, far, far better than those who bought into the fool's gold of the welfare state. You agree with that, don't you?
|
So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?
Now if you do answer the above, I think eventually you would come around to understanding my very first statement on this thread that caused an uproar, but which I firmly believe to be true... Even today, but not as much so as in the past.
I will agree that many of the ways the welfare system was set up based on Lyndon Johnson's dreams turned out to be a disincentive to work. I think it was well meaning, but horribly thought out. I do believe certain government programs are still needed to help people get a start. But no government program should be a disincentive for able bodied people to work. I believe working and making your way in a society, helps one cherish the benefits we do have in this country. But clearly some people need a leg up, and once they have the means, they are on their own. Churches, charities, etc... can only do so much.
I think people that reaped huge financial rewards have a duty to do everything they can to help the country that allowed them to make these gains. Like Gates and Buffet. But I dont think the government should make people do what Gates and Buffet had done.