Juneteenth made an official holiday in the US: What is your opinion on the matter? - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15234954
wat0n wrote:Right, but @Scamp can't imply it was something accepted by Northern society or the law.

Even worse, the only states that had allowed slave trade after independence were Southern states (the Carolinas and Georgia), and even that was intermittent.

@Scamp I'm pretty sure some Southerners were involved in what at the time was illegal slave trade. They had ships, which they used to export cotton for starters.

Wrong about the ships. Not a single slave from Africa ever came here on a Confederate or Southern ship. The New England states had the fast ships that could be slave ships. But I will say that yes, probably Southern money paid for the Northern ships to do the job. It was all about money.
#15234958
This might be one of the most incoherent and hard to follow threads on PoFo lately. That is all.

And in that spirit... Today is midsummer celebrations here in Sweden. If you want to know what happens, you can watch this movie and plan a visit next year :lol:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8772262/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_3

Image
#15234959
Tainari88 wrote:Don't assume I don't know the answer you fool.

I do assume you don't know jack shit about anything but some tiny teeny bullshit perspective. So I just assume you are not into history that is not about some assholes who think like you do. Scampy, I find you not much of a challenge.

You can keep trolling and hating on liberals. But it won't change the fact the liberals don't care about your type of mentality. It won't get them rich.

Lol.

So was the US more racist or sexist, based on who gets to vote? Which one would you like to bitch about? ;)
#15234962
MadMonk wrote:This might be one of the most incoherent and hard to follow threads on PoFo lately. That is all.

And in that spirit... Today is midsummer celebrations here in Sweden. If you want to know what happens, you can watch this movie and plan a visit next year :lol:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8772262/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_3

Image

Does Sweden have an official holiday dedicated to The African immigrants there yet? 8)
#15234964
Scamp wrote:So was the US more racist or sexist, based on who gets to vote? Which one would you like to bitch about? ;)


Look Scampy you are confused. I am not a white liberal woman with white liberal themes. So the bitching won't be about liberal white women screaming about stuff that bores me to death.

Hillary and her ilk all talk a lot about women being oppressed but they are pro capitalist sellout women with enormous power. Having vaginas doesn't convince me you got the right politics.

So? In the end it is about human rights. For everyone. That is the bottom line for me.

As far as you go? The liberals are going to be extremely tough to undermine. You will wind up shooting youselves in the foot.

I have no hope for the lost cause of the displaced and disgruntled confederates.
#15234965
Rancid wrote:Investment in these communities.

The single biggest thing you can do to drive down crime rates is invest in education (proven true in basically every nation on earth). Also investment in support systems like after school care/learning programs. Currently, we are doing the exact opposite to this "particular community" and other under privilege communities. We continue to divest, which makes these problems worse, then use that as the excuse to divest even more, making it even worse. Basically a downward spiral that we accelerate every time we write off this "particular community" as a lost cause.

The issue of behaviors as you might put it, would resolve itself when we foster an environment of learning & investment in communities. Especially in this "particular community".

Also, no surprised you are all complaints and no solutions.



Invest? The euphamism you use to transfer more money to intergenerational welfare failure. Get real. Your solutions are more of the same.


- - - - -

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure
September 2014

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution.

Last year, government spent $943 billion dollars providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans. (That figure doesn't include Social Security or Medicare.) More than 100 million people, or one-third of Americans, received some type of welfare aid, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. If converted into cash, this spending was five times what was needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its annual poverty report. The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that's almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty? The answer is - it can't.

Census counts a family as poor if its "income" falls below certain thresholds. But in counting "income," Census ignores almost all of the $943 billion in annual welfare spending. This, of course, makes the Census poverty figures very misleading.

The actual living conditions of households labeled as poor by Census are surprising to most people. According to the government's own surveys, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television; half have a personal computer; 40 percent have a wide-screen HDTV. Three-quarters own a car or truck; nearly a third has two or more vehicles.

Ninety-six percent of poor parents state that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food. Some 82 percent of poor adults reported that they were never hungry at any time in the prior year.

As a group, poor children are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Less than 2 percent of the poor are homeless. Only 10 percent live in a mobile home.

The average poor American lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair and not over-crowded. In fact, the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

Do these living conditions mean the War on Poverty was a success? Not really. When President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he wanted to give the poor a "hand up, not a hand out." He stated that his war would shrink welfare rolls and turn the poor from "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." Johnson's aim was to make poor families self-sufficient - able to rise above poverty through their own earnings without dependence on welfare.

The exact opposite happened. For a decade and a half before the War on Poverty began, self-sufficiency in American improved dramatically. But for the last 45 years, there has been no improvement at all. Many groups are less capable of self-support today than when Johnson's war started.

The culprit is, in part, the welfare system itself, which discourages work and penalizes marriage. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today the number is 41 percent. The collapse of marriage is the main cause of child poverty today.

The welfare state is self-perpetuating. By undermining the social norms necessary for self-reliance, welfare creates a need for even greater assistance in the future. President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion over the next decade on welfare programs that will discourage work, penalize marriage and undermine self-sufficiency.

Rather than repeating the mistakes of the past we should return to Johnson's original goal. Johnson sought to help the poor help themselves. He aimed to free the poor from the need for government aid, rather than to increase their dependence. That's a vision worth recapturing.

- Robert Rector is a senior research fellow in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-f ... rs-failure
#15234970
Rancid wrote:Education has continually been defunded, and teachers underpaid.


No. In your eyes maybe, but education (K-12) has suffered from massive bloat on the administrative side. More paper pushing and less teaching. More administrative staff that cuts into the core teaching $$$.

10th grade math of 50 years ago is now 12th grade math.

Much of education today is baby sitting, and it shows when compared with other westernized countries.
Last edited by BlutoSays on 24 Jun 2022 21:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15234971
BlutoSays wrote:Invest? The euphamism you use to transfer more money to intergenerational welfare failure. Get real. Your solutions are more of the same.


- - - - -

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure
September 2014

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution.

Last year, government spent $943 billion dollars providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans. (That figure doesn't include Social Security or Medicare.) More than 100 million people, or one-third of Americans, received some type of welfare aid, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. If converted into cash, this spending was five times what was needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its annual poverty report. The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that's almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty? The answer is - it can't.

Census counts a family as poor if its "income" falls below certain thresholds. But in counting "income," Census ignores almost all of the $943 billion in annual welfare spending. This, of course, makes the Census poverty figures very misleading.

The actual living conditions of households labeled as poor by Census are surprising to most people. According to the government's own surveys, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television; half have a personal computer; 40 percent have a wide-screen HDTV. Three-quarters own a car or truck; nearly a third has two or more vehicles.

Ninety-six percent of poor parents state that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food. Some 82 percent of poor adults reported that they were never hungry at any time in the prior year.

As a group, poor children are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Less than 2 percent of the poor are homeless. Only 10 percent live in a mobile home.

The average poor American lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair and not over-crowded. In fact, the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

Do these living conditions mean the War on Poverty was a success? Not really. When President Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he wanted to give the poor a "hand up, not a hand out." He stated that his war would shrink welfare rolls and turn the poor from "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." Johnson's aim was to make poor families self-sufficient - able to rise above poverty through their own earnings without dependence on welfare.

The exact opposite happened. For a decade and a half before the War on Poverty began, self-sufficiency in American improved dramatically. But for the last 45 years, there has been no improvement at all. Many groups are less capable of self-support today than when Johnson's war started.

The culprit is, in part, the welfare system itself, which discourages work and penalizes marriage. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today the number is 41 percent. The collapse of marriage is the main cause of child poverty today.

The welfare state is self-perpetuating. By undermining the social norms necessary for self-reliance, welfare creates a need for even greater assistance in the future. President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion over the next decade on welfare programs that will discourage work, penalize marriage and undermine self-sufficiency.

Rather than repeating the mistakes of the past we should return to Johnson's original goal. Johnson sought to help the poor help themselves. He aimed to free the poor from the need for government aid, rather than to increase their dependence. That's a vision worth recapturing.

- Robert Rector is a senior research fellow in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-f ... rs-failure

Yes we have already invested Trillions of dollars to make them better.
And look what we have.
Image
#15234976
BlutoSays wrote:I take that as a compliment !!

How is it that federal government intends to hide New England Americans among the Polish Americans and German AMericans and Irish Americans. What kind of tax payer money are we talking about here? How much money do they actually spend on this? New England Americans form Puritan Colonies in Vermont, Massachussettes, Rhode Island, and New England, now we don't have records of hardlining communities like that afterward anywhere. Then again, where is it now, FAR WORSE! They got money for a long time on this. They had John F Kennedy the Catholic Irishman sit at the throne of the Pope and go to Massachussettes to talk about Puritanism, weird.
#15234981
Mike12 wrote:How is it that federal government intends to hide New England Americans among the Polish Americans and German AMericans and Irish Americans. What kind of tax payer money are we talking about here? How much money do they actually spend on this? New England Americans form Puritan Colonies in Vermont, Massachussettes, Rhode Island, and New England, now we don't have records of hardlining communities like that afterward anywhere. Then again, where is it now, FAR WORSE! They got money for a long time on this. They had John F Kennedy the Catholic Irishman sit at the throne of the Pope and go to Massachussettes to talk about Puritanism, weird.

The creation of unnamed undesirable minorities. Leaving New England AMericans and founders of the country without any protections, unnamed and unworthy for the verdict of mobs. By the virtue that there is a Korean named and declared Presbyterian is pressure to the Confederate Church of New England Presbyterian Puritans, named the Church of America, which doesn't exist to meet or complain Anywhere. Because it went through 3 revolutions recently. United Presbyterian and PCUSA. All of these to the destruction of institutions of New England Americans, to the culture of them, to the obligations responsibilities and relations of them, and to the benefit alone of the Government.
#15234982
Scamp wrote:So says the person from Mexico. :lol:
This is not a comedy forum.

No one handed me a handbook as a 5 year old in Alabama for all the rapists from Mexico from the ex-presbytery confederate Church. Now what did the whole Government say is I think a lot of Presbyterian and how prestigious I am as a person and President. What does the Church have clear directions about what I do to make everything better with the Church and itself.
#15235015
Scamp wrote:So says the person from Mexico. :lol:
This is not a comedy forum.


I am now in Colorado USA at the YMCA watching my son play basketball. Does that make me qualified to comment now you fool? because I crossed the border.

Lol. You are really dumb. :lol:

Human rights. They need them in the USA and in other countries. Especially from the ones too scared to talk about black people and identify them as racists nincompoops.

The liberals got you brainwashed. You are scared. It is bad.

I live in Mexico. I live in Colorado. What if I live in some other country and then you get confused....because you never live free. You won't live with any sense of values worth anything Scamps.

Pack it up. You are stuck with only one track mind mentality and the liberals are in control of your hiding and worrying about saying some racist shit. Let it out. Its ok. :D
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why the war in Ukraine may be reaching a turning […]

China ain't gonna use nukes. If push came to sho[…]

GREAT NEWS ! Estonia begins removing commie war[…]