LBJ’s “Great Society” program destroyed the black family.

“American liberals need to accept that single-parent families are more likely to raise children in poverty, an influential New York Times columnist has argued.

Nick Kristof said the fact was taboo among progressives, who worried that they would be labelled racist for admitting it.

Black families are statistically more likely than white, Hispanic or Asian to be single-parent: less than half of black children were living with two married parents in 2020, according to the latest census.

Only 38 percent of black children live with married parents.

And while 62 percent of white children live in low-poverty areas with fathers present in most homes, only 4 percent of black children do.

'We have long had a blind spot,' wrote Kristof, in a column published on Wednesday. [no shit?]

'We are often reluctant to acknowledge one of the significant drivers of child poverty — the widespread breakdown of family — for fear that to do so would be patronizing or racist.' …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/12516663

Yes.

And what would Justice Janice Rogers Brown have to say about this article?

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
LBJ’s “Great Society” program destroyed the black family.

Definitely by design as he wanted them to become dependent on the democratic party in order to keep the black vote coming in. 200 years is what he said.

I have watched a few YouTube videos on how awful LBJ was. Not many people in the comments said good things about that bastard. I hope he's rotting in hell.

Sorry, can someone explain this statement.
Not making any judgement - just not sure what they are try to say or the point is.

quote:

And while 62 percent of white children live in low-poverty areas with fathers present in most homes, only 4 percent of black children do.

I find liberals for the most part are incapable of abstract thought.

Asians are short.

"I know a tall Asian"

Well yes, so do I.

Single parent families increase child poverty

"I know a single mom that makes good money"

Well yes, so do I.

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
I find liberals for the most part are incapable of abstract thought.

Asians are short.

"I know a tall Asian"

Well yes, so do I.

Single parent families increase child poverty

"I know a single mom that makes good money"

Well yes, so do I.

Excellent observation. That's basically all they have.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Sorry, can someone explain this statement. Not making any judgement - just not sure what they are try to say or the point is.

quote:

And while 62 percent of white children live in low-poverty areas with fathers present in most homes, only 4 percent of black children do.

Terrible writing! That sentence does not make any sense to me. Are there no editors to proof-read this stuff before it is published?

Extreme liberals have demonstrated themselves incapable of comprehending overwhelming facts and evidence that counter their line of thought or mantra of the moment. They will instead adopt a moral high ground, choose to ignore you, or just scream at you until you go away.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Sorry, can someone explain this statement.
Not making any judgement - just not sure what they are try to say or the point is.

quote:

And while 62 percent of white children live in low-poverty areas with fathers present in most homes, only 4 percent of black children do.

The way I read it:
64% of white kids living in poverty areas have the father living in the house.

4% of black kids living in poverty areas have the father living in the house.

However that does not say much. Since living in a poverty area does not equate to poverty.

But, does low-poverty mean affluent? It could...

This is the second NYT article someone posted recently, showing that liberal ideals produce negative results. What is the NYT coming to? I thought they were fully conforming to the liberal mindset? Perhaps all the crime and poverty in that city is finally getting to them, that something is wrong.

Link

Here is a link to the actual NY Times article. The confusing statement is evidently from the Daily Mail's writing, not the actual article itself.

I have a recollection of then-vice-president Dan Quayle being mocked (he got that a lot) over his criticism of Murphy Brown. He said the character, who later in the show became a single mother, was not to be looked up to as a role model. Never mind that she had a high-paying, glamorous job and another character (I forget his name or role) to provide child care. This is seldom the case with real single mothers.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Sorry, can someone explain this statement.
Not making any judgement - just not sure what they are try to say or the point is.

quote:

And while 62 percent of white children live in low-poverty areas with fathers present in most homes, only 4 percent of black children do.

Without reading the actual op-ed published in the NY Times, it’s behind paywall, I think it’s impossible to decipher what that excerpt’s point is.

The popular podcast by the popular book of the same name Freakonomics, their upcoming episode coming out next week discusses the issue of family structure and its correlations to poverty and education. Looking forward to how it's present as the sound bite from one of the economists points out that bringing up the issue of two-parent households being a major factor to stability in child rearing, is verboten in conferences, presentations and studies.

quote:

And while 62 percent of white children live in low-poverty areas with fathers present in most homes, only 4 percent of black children do

I will rephrase:

“Of children living in poverty areas, 38% have a white single parent;
while 96% of children living in a poverty area have a Black single parent.”

The number of single family Black households are 2.5 times more likely than White single parent households to be in poverty.

I think the sentence was a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

Please tell me whether you agree with my analysis.

I also think LBJ was a world class ass-hole who destroyed the traditional , matriarchal Black family unit by making the stay-at-home father penalized financially!
The above mentioned thought that it was deliberate, almost enslaving Blacks to the Democrat Party teat, rings true!

I find it sad they have to make everything about "race", when it is just numbers. Whenever any color family only has one parent for whatever reason, the kids will suffer for the most part-not necessarily just from money issues but many others reasons as well. It is a shame that some parts of our society- liberals, progressives, etc., want to eliminate the "nuclear family" when it is better to have a mother and father in a child's life for development and was ordained by God Himself.

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
<snip>
I think the sentence was a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

Please tell me whether you agree with my analysis.
<snip>

I think it was merely sloppy writing. DailyMail articles generally don’t reflect the Lib bias seen in nearly all MSM reports. But the DailyMail editors are often asleep at the switch. I know that publication quite well.

quote:

'We are often reluctant to acknowledge one of the significant drivers of child poverty — the widespread breakdown of family — for fear that to do so would be patronizing or racist.' …”

You know what’s patronizing and racist? The idea that a group of rich white people are or are not “patronizing and racist” depending on whether they choose to recognize facts about the struggles that many in the black community are facing and all aware of. Black people know this exists and that it’s a huge problem, and they don’t care a whit whether or not strangers recognize it.

LBJ tried and failed.

He was anti-racist and a political opportunist.

What politician isn't?

His biggest mistake was paying more money for single parent households and increasing checks per child.

I had a single mother tenant explain to me she wanted another child so she could qualify for more money and a bigger apt.

The rule of unintended consequences.

When LBJ signed the law he was heard saying they are going to vote Democrat for 200 years.