> They are better off now in opportunity (in the PRIVATE sector) due to the discrediting of racism

IIRC, a fairly large segment of the Black middle class works for government.

> The fact is before the UNITED STATES’ welfare state kicked in
> Black illegitmacy was under 20%. After it is over 70%. You see no causal corrolation there?

No, I seriously don’t because there are many, many other factors involved. Absolute standards of living have definitely increased, there is an increased focus on materialism and individual rights, there is the sexual revolution plus changing attitudes regarding sexuality, parenthood, marriage etc. etc..

> And the difference that it is Blacks, the most targeted by the Welfare state of the 1960s and 70s
> whose illegitmacy rates EXPLODED.

These trends affect all U.S. ethnic groups to some extent, e.g. it seems (see http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/chart-4.gif ) white out-of-wedlock births have increased from 5% in 1965 to 25% in 1999 while the black illegitimacy rate tripled (from ~25% to ~75%). In both cases the increase started before Great Society and the African American percentage was as high as 15% already in 1940 (while illegitimacy only hit 15% in the mid-80s) .

> Each country is different and demographics I am sure play a huge part in it.

Of course… For example, Sweden’s figures seem worse than they really are because cohabitation is more common than formal marriage.

MARCU$

A minority is a minority is a minority? Nice to lump them altogether. Very “liberal” of you. Is that the best you can do? As I said they have NOTHING in common other than what they are not…White or Christian, although most Jews are White and most Blacks are Christian so… Nice try.

“So did whites, if “stable families” refer to low divorce rates and few out-of-wedlock children.”

Yes. That is exactly how I am describing it. And the difference that it is Blacks, the most targeted by the Welfare state of the 1960s and 70s whose illegitmacy rates EXPLODED. (Whites too wen up some as social stigmas broke down, but the Black community self-destructed in a sea of unwed mothers that corrolates quite nicely with the introduction of the nanny state).

“Is it Lyndon B. Johnson’s fault that even Bristol Palin gets knocked up these days, despite having a deeply religious down-to-earth mum?”

Stupid statement (even for you). What are the overall macro stats. You point out one case to make yours? really? Nah you’re not that dumb, just transparent. You just wanted to take a shot at Sarah Palin.

“I see. The Great Society, MLK and Affirmative Action have been breathtaking failures and blacks were much better off in the 1950s…”

They are better off now in opportunity (in the PRIVATE sector) due to the discrediting of racism that I freely admit was more a gift of the cultural left than anyone. But if you honestly think that a society that has a 70% illegitmacy rate is better off than one that has 20% or less you are a fool. So socially and opportunity-wise Blacks have a more level playing field…but that field has been more than negated by a cradle-to-grave welfare state that rewarded the behavior that has now condemend so many to abject poverty, despair and crime. By the way, what are the incarceration rates of Blacks today compared to the 1950s?

“If your arguments were correct, surely left-liberal social democratic countries such as Sweden or Canada ought to be in even poorer shape, no? Is family breakdown a more serious problem there than in the States? We could use metrics such as divorce rates, teenage pregnancies or the likelihood of parents staying together until their children become adults. To my knowledge, these countries fare no worse than the U.S. and usually perform better! And isn’t white illegitimacy a bigger problem in the deeply religious, “individual values” oriented South than in Blue states?”

Each country is different and demographics I am sure play a huge part in it. Unless you think downtown Stiockholm and downtown Camden are alike? The fact is before the UNITED STATES’ welfare state kicked in Black illegitmacy was under 20%. After it is over 70%. You see no causal corrolation there?

MARCU$
Leave a Comment

Well, in both cases we are talking about minorities that strongly support the Democratic party.
That’s why I mentioned them, since Republicans keep asking the “what’s wrong with Jews/blacks?!” question. I am saying both are MINORITIES, period, and they have perfectly rational and reasonable reasons for not trusting the GOP.

> That Blacks, however poorly treated they were still had stable families
> in the olden days as you call them.

So did whites, if “stable families” refer to low divorce rates and few out-of-wedlock children. Is it Lyndon B. Johnson’s fault that even Bristol Palin gets knocked up these days, despite having a deeply religious down-to-earth mum?

> they came out the other side just as poor and with DESTROYED families

I see. The Great Society, MLK and Affirmative Action have been breathtaking failures and blacks were much better off in the 1950s…

>..bloating of the welfare state and laid waste to the very societies it once helped.

If your arguments were correct, surely left-liberal social democratic countries such as Sweden or Canada ought to be in even poorer shape, no? Is family breakdown a more serious problem there than in the States? We could use metrics such as divorce rates, teenage pregnancies or the likelihood of parents staying together until their children become adults. To my knowledge, these countries fare no worse than the U.S. and usually perform better! And isn’t white illegitimacy a bigger problem in the deeply religious, “individual values” oriented South than in Blue states?

MARCU$

First of all Blacks and Jews have NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH in common and, in fact, Blacks are among the most anti-semitic groups there are! One is the richest strata of our society..the other the poorest. One has the stablest of family units, the other the least. Jews were never slaves in America. The victims of predjudice at times? Sure. But who wasn’t (“no dogs nor Irish allowed.” “Irish need not apply”).

Your lame attempt at sarcasm denies this basic fact: That Blacks, however poorly treated they were still had stable families in the olden days as you call them. After the Great Society wave of “compassion” you liberals (who have no inkling of human nature) gushed upon them, they came out the other side just as poor and with DESTROYED families–genrations of fatherless children (other than in sperm donating) in the 70% range. Man with “compassion” like that who needs the KKK!

YOU also write: “Like it or not, there is a widespread perception among minorities that aggressively emphasizing “individual rights” tends to put the have-nots at a strong disadvantage.” Gee. I wonder who porffered THAT idea? Liberal media perhaps??? Hmmm. The left whose directly equate government largess with compassion? True consequences be damned?

Liberalism had its time in place…as in teh 1950s-60s to end Jim Crow and institutionalized discrimination (of legitimate minority groups). But that conscience turned into the blaoting of the welfare state and laid waste to the very societies it once helped. Liberals are stuck in a fairy-tale world of Tuxedoed and top-hatted Repunblicans with their canes and monicles sipping brandy in restricted country clubs and holding down the little guy–it is an archaic, out-dated, and bogus image. The wlefare state has done more harm to minorities than any grand wizard. You can keep your “compassion” that makes you feel good about yourself while condemning generations of black youths to permanent servitude to the state.

This is basically a conservative version of the “what’s wrong with Kansas?!” argument. How can blacks and Jews be so blind and stupid that they don’t grasp how compassionate and color-blind we conservatives are! Yet those two core Democratic groups just don’t want to see a return to the olden days, when churches and voluntary charities were responsible for helping the poor.
—
Like it or not, there is a widespread perception among minorities that aggressively emphasizing “individual rights” tends to put the have-nots at a strong disadvantage. The 1950s civil rights debate is a classic example of this: conservative intellectuals such as Bill Buckley felt deeply uncomfortable about racial discrimination in the South but they always rejected fixing the problems since it would have required state intervention/coercion. In contrast, blacks at the time felt the conservative suggestion on how to defeat racial segregation (=voluntary consumer boycotts of segregated bus companies or lunch restaurants) was not going to prove effective any time soon.

MARCU$

There is no better destroyer of poverty than the free enterprise system.

Give a man a fish (compassionate liberals) and he’ll eat for a day — until of course you take yet another fish from the other guy’s net who worked for it all day (American jews). Teach a man to fish (ala conservatives) and he’ll eat for a lifetime — and beomce a thriving and self-reliant middle class. I ask you, which side is TRULY more compassionate?

I should explain what I meant by “improvement.”

I meant that it’s cool that you perceive the Jews as so compassionate. There was a time when Christians perceived Jews as grubby money-lenders and usurers.

No, that’s not the only reason.

The other reason was that the American system of democratic capitalism is descended from the European Enlightenment, which was led by Christians. Adam Smith was a Christian. John Locke was a Christian. The Jews missed out on all that.

Whereas Jews gave the world socialism: Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, many others.

Here in America, Jews were active in many socialist Jewish organizations like the Workmen’s Circle and Hadassah. Some were active in the Communist Party USA. And the state of Israel was formed around an explicit socialist philosophy, put into practice in the kibuttzim, or farm communes.

While many Jews went into business for themselves and became quite wealthy, the prevailing Jewish philosophy never found a PHILOSOPHICAL justification for their capitalist endeavors. Jewish philosophy was more compatible with socialism. AFAIK, there were no Jewish philosophers of capitalism comparable to Adam Smith until recent times (Milton Friedman, and to a lesser extent, Ayn Rand).

So Judaism and capitalism never officially embraced, even though many Jews were capitalists. Christians remembered, though Jews forgot, the words of Psalm 122: “They shall prosper that love Thee.”

“They have heart and they have compassion.” SO DO CONSERVATIVES! ” They care about the poor and the needy.” SO DO CONSERVATIVES! “I have never met a Jew in my entire life who wasn’t concerned for the those more unfortunate.” SAME WITH CONSERVATIVES!…”And it is why they lean Democratic. They are almost universal in their fight against social injustice.” AS ARE CONSERVATIVES..

But your defintion of fighting social injustices is what? Big Government? Unfair affirmative action that treats minorities as incapable of competing on their own merits? Condescending welfare states that have DESTROYED entire poor communities and sent Black illigitimacy into the +70% level? You remind me of a parent who thinks they are being “compassionate” by giving their kids candy every time they ask for it! A conservative understands that that is notcompassion..that is doing the kid more damage than good. Same with our resistance to the cradle-to-grave wlefare nanny state you so wrongly equate with “compassion.” We call it destrroying entire generations with good intentions!

“But they most definitely tend to be more liberal in their outlook and personal philosophy. I have met far, far more liberal Jews, (and dated some liberal Jewish men as well), than ‘conservative’ Jews. And the thrust by Republicanism into fierce anti-intellectualism,” (Oh you mean like questioning global warming, resistance to seccular humanism as the new religion) their anti-big city stance, (come again?) their embrace of a breakdown in church and state (as opposed to the complete stamping out of religion in every and all factions of our lives despite the hirtorical nexus between religion and our nation’s oorigin, laws, and moral foundations?) are all legitimate reasons why they cannot totally embrace them now.”

You show yourself to be a self-righteous lefty loon who supports policies that have done so much damage to those you claim to care about…in the name of “compassion.”