Black Professor Says It’s Welfare, Not Slavery, That Decimated US Black Families
(www.independentsentinel.com)
Comments (153)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Serious question I have....why didn’t welfare completely decimate the white family in the same way?
It does, but enough white people aren't in the system for it to have a generation vicious cycle. If you're a poor white kid, you'll likely have some middle to upper class fiends in school. These influences show you the way out.
Many black kids only interact with other poor kids, so all they know is the welfare cycle.
And it is a cycle. There's whole generations of black families who have been pretty much solely dependent on welfare since its invention. They're on it. Their mom is on it. Their grandma is on it. There's whole families who never spent a dollar in their life that wasn't handed out by the government.
That is just pure insanity. How did that just pass by everyone?
Well... I can very well imagine the answer... but still...
No one had the spine to talk about it because it was immediately retorted with "YOU'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY THEIR LIVELIHOOD".
Its totally socio-economic and not racial. After WW2 you had the second or third great black migration to northern cities, and despite the forced ghettoization and redlining you have black families moving into the middle class in the 50s and early 60s, like every other working-class group since the German migration. Then social welfare hits like a bomb.
It'd be the same for Italian or Irish immigrants in their ghettos had social welfare hit decades earlier. There's a reason why the deep south still has semblance of black middle class in their cities. Southern cities were poorer than their northern counterparts so blacks had an easier trip up the economic ladder to relative prosperity for their region. The north has never been properly desegregated and the concentration in wealth has always been in the northeast and midwest.
Ok. So what do we do? I’d like to end it cold turkey, but a lot of my bleedIng heart friends dont want that.
Trump is already doing it. Step 1: Bring back well-paying manufacturing jobs. Step 2: Economic Opportunity Zones. Step 3: Reduce black unemployment. Step 4: Gradually reduce welfare benefits. Step 5: Repeat steps 1-4 as necessary. Step 6: ???? Step 7: Profit!
We are a country of more jobs than people. That's why we steadily have more than a million immigrants coming in every year. That's more than enough jobs for the people on welfare to get off. Although, 0% unemployment is functionally impossible. Cutting them off cold turkey is the answer. Not slowly, but immediately.
I'd say its gotten better though, it was a lot worse in the 80's and 90's. BUT there's also more entitlements than ever, so you could say it hasn't gotten better because there's definitely more people overall on welfare of some sort.
It's a problem that solves itself once you cut it off cold turkey. If they don't work, they're broke. Maybe they turn to illegal activities to make money, but that's beside the point. Employers that may not pay a livable wage, will have no choice but to pay a livable wage. Right now, employers get away with not paying a livable wage, because the taxpayers subsidizing their workers with welfare, allows them to pay less. So cutting off welfare will be hard at first, but it will have economic boosting benefits. More money in taxpayer pockets, more money in previous welfare recipients pockets (if they choose to not be broke).
So how do you cut them off cold turkey? Make VERY strict requirements to be eligible. Preferably it'd be nice to cut it off completely and remove things like the foodstamp system altogether, because there will always be people who are happy to not work and collect what little they can, even if it's not enough to live off of. The truth is, people will make due with even a very small amount of entitlements, because if they don't have to do anything for it, it's free money in their pockets either way. We will always have people like that. There's homeless people with food stamp cards, but they're not homeless for any reason other than they don't care to do anything to not be homeless. For them, homelessness is a choice.
But the ultimate solution, is to simply remove ALL welfare, and only cover the disabled. Again, it would be painful at first, but there would soon be sweeping changes in the economy for the better of everyone. Employers can't hire people if they can't put food on the table. No workers = No business. When it comes to the choice of less profit or no profit, which do you think businesses would choose? Obviously, less profit.
Remove the social security system, and the same thing will happen. If people can't make enough money to save for retirement, companies will be forced to pay more. If after that they squander it and don't save? That's on them. No bailouts.
One also has to think of the effects on supply and demand. Right now, millions upon millions of people, are buying up tons of food with foodstamps. Think about how that affects the cost of things when it comes to supply and demand. It makes things cost more, because more demand, less supply. And what's worse, is its technically demand not based on production. It's "free" money given to people that didn't contribute to the economy to get that money. It's essentially the same as printing money, and with the +20 trillion of debt, ALL government money is technically printed money....worse even, because it's all debt money with interest attached to it.
See, the truth about welfare is entitlements are used to buy votes. That's its only purpose. Yes, people can fall on hard times, but if you live in a world where people have no safety net, guess what happens? Changes. Job security increases. Personal responsibility increases. Pay increases. Prices decrease. Because the people will demand it collectively, and there will be no way they can be ignored, and no way that companies can save face. No one to offset their employee's pay.
Before the welfare system was enacted, people lived exactly like this, and it worked just fine. It was only when the great depression happened that problems came. And maybe a welfare system can help boost things when events like that happen, but a welfare system doesn't and shouldn't be perpetually active. It should only be activated in times of economic depression, if necessary.
There's also a lot of other things that can be done to shore up things for having no welfare systems. For example, limiting exports. One of the main reasons for some products pricing, is that Americans have to compete with overseas sales (such as with groceries), which drives up prices. American beef and milk for example. Look what happened when Canada banned US milk sales in their country. Milk went from $4-5 a gallon to $1.25 a gallon. Why? Because the dairy industry had more milk than they knew what to do with. They may have been profiting less, but they were still profiting. Some things, companies make more money selling overseas than locally.
So they have every interest to sell overseas, which decreases supply in the US, which increases price in the US. So we actually end up paying more for products in the US as citizens, for companies selling those products overseas. At that point, we are practically paying for the "privilege" to provide exports of our goods to other countries, almost like welfare. And those countries may levy heavy taxes (like China) and put money into their own coffers by siphoning wealth from the sale of our products. Even in cases where we sell products to other countries for less money than we pay, that hurts us even more, because it's again reducing supply, which increases prices of those products for US citizens.
So if we limit what products are allowed to be exported, we would both increase supply and reduce price. We need to have businesses revolving around essentials (like food) operating in a capacity where they have almost too much supply. This doesn't necessarily need to be perpetual, but in time of extreme economic downturn, it would be a measure that could drastically stretch peoples dollar.
Many black kids only interact with other black kids, who may likely also be on welfare.
They are taught NOT to socialize with whites.
Ever notice how the blacks always sit together in the lunchroom?
This is a bit of a misleading statement as any major change immediately causes for a drop in statistics and behavior. Combine elements if tribalism (no matter the race) and it is exacerbated. The strong correlation of welfare breeding welfare is both accurate and the original intention. Just search Lindon B Johnson and "ill have those n*****s voting Democrat for generations."
For current stats, look up foster children and their rates of producing more foster children, single parent homes breeding single parent homes, and the rates of single parent homes on welfare and producing foster children. Also, there is a financial cliff at about 18k income where if you make 18.1k, you lose almost 50k worth of several aid, thus incentivizing many to never leave.
This is the most devious part of the whole plan. Every single western country has this same 'critical flaw' in their welfare systems. There is a point where making even a dollar more money means losing money. There is no way in hell that wasn't designed intentionally.
urban folks are more affected by welfare.
I think it’s because whites didn’t go running to urban areas. Most urban areas denounce 2A and criminal prosecution.
I also think it’s because white people aren’t teaching their kids to hate. Look at the Tulsa rally. Not saying that they were all poor, but Tulsa isn’t on anyone’s mind when they think rich. The white people in line were filled with happiness and love. Everyone else there to start shit was bitter and anger.
It absolutely does. I come from a small town of poor white people. All the same issues, just not quite as vicious in the acting out. Lots of thieves, not many murderers.
I've heard anecdotal reporters that they specifically sent welfare agents to black communities to inform them that they were ineligible for welfare benefits if there was a man in the house. Larry Elder mentioned it in his first interview with Dave Ruben.
YES! THIS
The welfare that is implemented in America was first implement in Britain. These Whites on welfare have same characteristics as Blacks on welfare in America. It is well document. Tom Sowell writes about it at length.
Theodore Dalrymple wrote about this too, "Life at the Bottom." He was a prison psychologist, and he saw the same kind of attitudes in poor white in Britain, they had been taught that because they were poor, nothing was their responsibility, things just happened to them, like they had no agency. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but I believe he said the elites/psychs/liberals had pushed these ideas about poor people, gave them excuses, and so of course criminals used it as a handy excuse for any bad behavior.
You have created a red herring. My point was on the effects of welfare on families and cultures. My point had nothing to do with parentage, but with effects on behavior. To compare Tom Sowell to Mr. Coates is reprehensible. Tom Sowell credentials are beyond reproach. Your problem is that you are viewing this from a myopic view and not from the point of historical view. BTW, Tom Sowell was quoting research of a British doctor who document this behavior after welfare was implemented for Whites in Britain. I am going to venture and say, you have never read Tom Sowell’s book on the subject.
I have not looked into this topic extensively, so I wonder whether you might have studied this topic and whether you can answer this question without spending much time on it:
Are family units where children are reared and raised primarily or solely by their parents the norm in Sub-Saharan Africa, rural and/or urban? Or is it the norm that children are reared and raised primarily by a whole village or similar grouping, instead of primarily or solely their parents, and where parentage of children matters less? If you have studied this topic and know of any sources and material reg. it, I would greatly appreciate it.