Let's assume for the sake of argument that the above remark is an accurate description of reality in America. Are African-American adults who are dependent on government handouts, and who have custody and control over children, more likely than other adults to raise a generation that is dependent on government handouts? Please note that custody over children is a legal concept. Has there been any push by Republican legislators to give children an option of ceasing to be in the custody of their biological parents?
Please note that a child's parents are the child's direct ancestors. By assigning legal authority over children to their biological parents, governments ensure that how children are treated depends on who the children's ancestors are. Other legislation has also ensured that how children are treated depends on who their ancestors are: for example, legislation providing for multi-generational slavery, and legislation that gives refugee status to the children of Palestinian refugees.
Why the **** should this even be a consideration? This is ****ing nuts! You know, I've talked about this before but there are many, many ways the Democrats could have truly given these poor black people a hand up (the whole teach a man to fish thing) instead of a handout. Instead, they've got as many of them as they can enslaved on these inner city plantations. How about instead of going to such extremes (I swear you must be 16 years old to even think like this). Historically, you can trace the destruction of the black family and their descent into extreme poverty directly to Johnson's great society. Since then, every time anyone proposes welfare reform the democrats scream and yell and moan and get their dependent class all scared and worked up. It's very sad since we do know that giving them opportunities (even if done with tough love) they'll take advantage of it. Americans want to succeed.
When Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to signing welfare reform, more single parent (mostly female) families were lifted out of poverty than since the beginning of the racist "great society". When Dubya was president, the poorest children in Washington DC were finally able to get out of their poor, failing schools and get vouchers to attend the private school of their parent's choice, because parents always want a better life for children than they have. Those families who took advantage of the opportunity found their children, not just thriving but succeeding. What did the boy king do when he got into office? Cancelled a very, very successful program that gave poor children a chance to have the quality education his children take for granted. Or maybe it was just that he didn't want to have the first daughters rubbing elbows with poor black children. And, of course, a generation that educated themselves off of welfare would no longer need the left. What other explanation could there be? It didn't take any extra money because it used the same funds that would've gone to their failing school.
But how about this. How about instead of continuing to hand out money, we use it to improve impoverished neighborhoods and the families that live there. Granted, slum lords like Tony Rezko & Valerie Jarrett would be held accountable and might have to actually use some of the government subsidies they get for owning these inner city plantation buildings on real improvements. Being that many of these slum lords have the ears of prominent dems
(0bama) it's no wonder change never comes. If the left truly cares about poor minorities, they'd realize the war on poverty has been an abysmal failure almost a half a century in the making. I'm no genius but I do know if you give people an opportunity and teach them to take pride in themselves, their families and their communities, the majority will rise to the occasion.
Using money already being poured into these families and into the pockets of the rich (0bama's good friends) slumlords, entire neighborhoods could be changed. Have job training programs and vouchers to go to a community college or trade school. Have community daycare centers so someone can watch their children while their parents are bettering their lives. As these parents get jobs, they can start paying, just a little bit at a time, for their children's daycare. There are plenty of loving grandmothers who would love to take care of children. Pay them a wage instead of giving them a welfare check. Make sure the building owners bring the plumbing up to standards, fix the heat, paint the buildings inside and out. Fix playgrounds for children and build fences as high and strong as possible because simply being able to be children will do wonders for their neighborhood. I can't imagine the fear and strain of not being able to let your children out to play for fear they'll be shot.
As for gang violence, have sweeps (just like they've done in other neighborhoods and with other kinds of crime) so that it becomes too uncomfortable for them to be there. They've been allowed to run these neighborhoods for too long and we can expect it will be violent and sometimes bloody, but it's that way already and the end result of running them out is a better life for everyone who lives there. If these neighborhoods are suspicious of white police officers (and why shouldn't they be, they've been taught to) then bring in black police at first. And, without a doubt, arm these citizens and teach them to shoot and gun safety. You can definitely see the truth in the adage "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" here. Because only outlaws (i.e. drug dealers and gangbangers) have guns in these places. Strict gun control laws or a complete ban means law abiding citizens are at the mercy of every violent criminal in the neighborhood. It's just wrong to not allow ("allow" shouldn't even be used in this context because it's a 2nd Amendment right) them to defend themselves. A "stand your ground law" would be perfect for the inner cities.
As things improve and it gets safer to walk outside, improve yards, neighborhoods and start community gardens. REQUIRE schools to show significant improvement or allow the families to take that same money and use it to send their children to the private school of their choice. With proper training and incentives, there's no reason these schools can't rival the best public schools (an oxymoron, IMO) in the country. Simply put: fire ineffective teachers, give raises and other incentives to teachers who work hard and whose students show improvement. And children don't have to be grouped in artificial divisions like "grade" just group them together by ability. Better they learn what they need to be productive citizens than worry about artificial bullshit like "self esteem". Charles Manson has scads of self esteem.
So why hasn't anyone on the left proposed these kinds of changes instead of blaming Republicans for not signing on for more handouts? Why is it that every single time Republicans have called for reform the Democrats immediately start whining & hyperventilating and running into these neighborhoods screaming that Republicans want to take their welfare checks away. Generations of these poor people have been so conditioned to react instead of using critical thinking skills they're never able too see there are ways to have a better life. And the only reason I can think of for not wanting to improve the life of poor blacks is racism and the fear of what will happen if the poor suddenly find themselves upwardly mobile, even (gasp) middle class. They'd no longer need government handouts. They'd no longer have need of the democrat party. Democrats would have to earn their vote instead of automatically getting it out of fear.
Cindie
