No… i dispute your assumption that he is an expert. Where is McWhorter’s experience in public policy? Other than Linguistics and his misfortune of being a black man who sounds white (his designation) he’s been annointed by the Manhattan Institute after his insipid initial book. While I totally disagree with say… Thomas Sowell i would completely concur that he is an economist of the first degree. Shelby Steele , a junior professor at a community college, and John McWhorter a man who’s never worked in public policy… are not experts because influential white people in think tanks buy their books and create titles for them. How are food stamps as they are 'currently" situated created merely for blacks? Even if you go “Great Society” on me i would argue that LBJ was thinking about those dirt poor white people he carried to the polls back in the day. I have four classes at the masters degree level in public policy… and have worked as a social worker… and McWhorter is more of an expert than me because Abgail Thernstrom likes what he says?? yeah…
Never said he was an expert. Said he had a degree in American Studies and that he taught at some cool schools, implying that he might be smarter than your average bear.
Well, then I’m sure you can provide a list of the regulatory changes to the welfare system in the 60s and how they were designed with poor blacks in mind (and whether or not such changes somehow excluded poor whites). And I’m sure you’ll provide a links to congressional testimony or debates that indicate that this was indeed what was going on. I would hate to think that either you or John McWhorter were making things up and pulling things out of certain orifices.
Actually, I’m going to give a few congressmen a call right now.
Just give me a second.
One more moment.
Just a tick.
OK, done.
Turns out you’re right. Sorry guys!
Oh wait, that’s right. I’d much rather listen to an intelligent, persuasive college professor who is himself black than random people on the internet.
Thank you for being so clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and haven’t even done the most cursory research on the subject. Most people would try to play coy about it, but you’ve put your astonishing ignorance on display for everyone here to see.
Your professor doesn’t list the specific changes to the welfare system in the sixties. And you (again displaying your ignorance) seem to think that you have to call up your congressman to look through publicly available records such as laws and congressional debates or statements. For your future reference, there’s an invention called the internet now, where you can find all this stuff readily available.
And finally, to anyone in this thread who actually is interested in a debate, during the sixties, there were a number of court rulings which struck down discriminatory welfare systems both on the Federal and state level, and in response, legislatures began to change these systems to be less discriminatory.
Most of these court rulings had to do with racial discrimination, gender discrimination or legitimacy discrimination (ie, children born out of wedlock). Now, I have to assume this is what the mighty professor (who has no background in this field) is talking about, because of this quote, which AClockworkMelon unfortunately didn’t post on the board:
Here, McWhorter is discussing the pre-60s welfare system. Now, as I said, I have to assume that he’s talking about the the court rulings and legislation to remove discrimination in favor of white people and against minorities. I have to assume this because McWhorter doesn’t go into any detail, and AClockworkMelon obviously has no knowledge of the topic at hand. So, let’s assume that’s what he’s talking about, then the system wasn’t designed with “poor blacks” in mind. The system was designed to stop discriminating against non-whites, women and illegitimate children.
There were also a number of new or expanded programs, such as Medicaid and AFDC, but since these aren’t race-based, I fail to see how they were designed with “poor blacks” in mind. Do poor whites not eat or need medical care? Because that would be quite a neat trick if that’s the case.
Someone needs a nap. :rolleyes:
Wow. So when I say that the welfare system was reformed in the '60s with poor blacks in mind, you find it “unfortunate” that I don’t mention about how bigoted the program was before that time?
So when I say that the system was reformed in the '60s with poor blacks in mind, you go on to quote McWhorter, who you yourself say was talking about the pre-'60s system, and that’s evidence that the system I’m talking about, the system created in the '60s, wasn’t made with blacks in mind? Gee. I wish I could argue like you.
Of course whites benefited from the system. And of course blacks, yet again, go the short end of the stick from the system which was overseen by (likely racist) whites. The people who ran the system and the ones who designed it are different groups of people. The system being designed with poor blacks in mind wouldn’t prevent heavy handed racists from abusing their positions to give more aid to whites.
All I did coming into this thread was suggest that it was the widespread troubles that the blacks were facing that encouraged welfare reform in the '60s and you go at me like a rabid dog. You’re lucky I’m not as sensitive as some of the other posters, otherwise I’d have to shake my fist at you in futility. :rolleyes:
Back at you.:rolleyes:
No, I find it unfortunate that you didn’t include more of his quote, since it gives more context about what he’s talking about (although not much, since he’s not clear at all).
The thing is, there were other races in this country in the 60s who were being discriminated against. So, if you remove racial discrimination from the system, that’s not designing a system with “poor blacks” in mind, since those changes affect whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans (although I believe most NAs aren’t covered by these programs). So, if that is what he is talking about, then the system wasn’t changed with “poor blacks” in mind. It was changed to remove discrimination against a number of races and remove discrimination in favor of a specific race. See how that works? More than just “poor blacks” in mind. If he thinks the system was changed with “poor blacks” in mind because it removed discrimination, then all he’s done is present a thoroughly superficial (and incorrect analysis) by neglecting to inform the reader of the changes that affected other races as well.
You can’t even detail these changes that were supposedly designed with “poor blacks” in mind. All you’ve done is point to an article and ask us mind-read what these changes were. Gee, I hope I don’t learn how to argue like you, since your arguments amount to the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Yeah. Instead of detailing these changes and presenting an analysis as to how those were designed with poor blacks in mind, you started talking about calling your congressman. So, I think it’s clear who has the “rabid dog” argumentation style here. The reason you want to shake your fist at me in futility is because you have completely no idea what you are talking about, and you don’t like getting called out on your complete ignorance.
Oh, and more rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It’s like asking for evidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 wasn’t put into play with blacks in mind. The truth is the welfare reform of the '60s was just one of several pieces of civil rights legislation enacted at the time- yes, with disenfranchised blacks in mind.
The '68 act deals with race/color, religion and national origin. So, it was put into play with not just blacks in mind, but also with people of various races and religions and national origins in mind. So, if you want to amend your statement to say that these changes were made with blacks, as well as other races in mind, I’ll agree. But if you continue to leave out the other races (and religions and national origins), then I’ll need evidence.
But, I’m pretty sure that the real reason you keep trying to duck the question here is that you actually have no idea what changes were made to the welfare system in the 60s. So, we’ll probably just get another evasive answer out of you.
Standard Operating Procedure.
ANYONE who applies for any form of public aid, at least in my state, is assigned a case worker. No exceptions. Granted, for an able-bodied adult there ain’t much for said caseworker to do - mostly accepted application, make it’s filled out correctly, proper documentation is attached, read the rules to said person, and say “I’ll see you on XYZ date for review”.
Makes up for the people who take a lot of their time and effort, I suppose.
As I said, people who aren’t poor and haven’t used the system have no idea how it works, or how its supposed to. Your question is an example of that. I don’t mean that in a bad way, if you’ve never needed to access the system why would you know about it, right? And I’m guessing that, should you be unfortunate enough to need aid, you would freak at the notion of being assigned a case worker, but some people do.
If you are going to wander into a thread, post nonsense about anti-white racism* without the slightest evidence, and then dig up a quote from a source that has no historical credentials, you had better not wander back in to rudely declare that you cannot take the time to read a rebuttal.
If you are not going to participate, stay out of the thread. If you are going to effectively claim that you are ignoring another poster, you will be Warned.
[ /Moderating ]
- There is, of course, anti-white racism in this country, as nearly all groups are capable of falling into a trap of racist thought, however, YOUR claim was unsupported nonsense.
And if you do not back off on your other rude displays, you will not be around much longer.
[ /Moderating ]
Did anyone ask Dr. McWhorter for a cite?
This is quite interesting, if you’ve ever read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. He’s got a chapter on how lower and upper class kids behave at the doctor’s and at school, who’s taught to just follow orders (well, if you want to be good) and which kids are told from a young age that it’s their place to converse and to question, even when it comes to authority figures. I can see how this mindset could hamper the efforts of formerly middle and upper class people dealing with the welfare system.
As for social workers depending on the expansion of the welfare state for employment, as suggested by athelas, please, I’d love to meet the case worker who’s afraid of being too successful at their job, or the eradication of poverty.
That’s what I don’t get. Why would a non-disabled adult apply for public aid in the first place?
What - you think able-bodied adults don’t lose their jobs?
You think able-bodied adults can’t lose their homes to fire or flood?
You think able-bodied people can’t suffer other forms of misfortune that leave them destitute?
I hope you never have the opportunity to find out personally why an able-bodied person might need to apply for public aid, but I assure you it does happen, and their requests for help can be legitimate in every way.
Here, in the largest county in Minnesota, when you apply for assistance you start in what is essentially a triage interview. What do you need? What documentation do you have to substantiate your request? From there you are routed to the appropriate team of financial workers who will help you navigate the system. If you are missing documentation, you are given a certain amount of time to provide it. Once you have completed the paperwork, you are managed by a team. Once upon a time you would have had your own financial worker, but the County decided it would be more efficient for a team to handle cases - more eyes to keep things on track.
The general areas are people with children (male or female), single people, elderly people, and disabled people. Obviously some people cross areas, and they’re routed to whichever team could best benefit the customer. If a disabled person has a child, depending on the level of disability s/he may be with a disability financial team or a family team.
People are not given benefits based on their race, it’s calculated based on the need and proof of need provided. Pretty clear and simple.
The biggest frustration workers have from the inside is the high levels of fraud. It’s not uncommon for a single woman with children to apply for assistance, claiming the father is not in the household, but he is. This is also not a race thing.
However, I see that the OP is in Cook County. They’re a different world. I’ve worked in and around the world of public assistance for 13 years and still do not understand how Cook County works.
What I don’t understand is why a non-disabled adult would even think of taking public aid?
Jeff at the risk of the possibility that you might simply be trolling… you need to understand that “taking aid” is not just food stamps, cash assistance… it can also encompass health care for yourself and your children. Here’s an example that I remember from my time in the trenches. In mizzou at the time unemployment was 220$ a week… in Kansas i believe it was 300$… Sprint knows their going to lay off about a 1000 people so they transfer them from their place of work in Overland Park, KS and makes them report for one week in an office building with nothing to do in Kansas City. Effectively puts them on Mizzou umemploy and saved Sprint money in the end. Several workers came in to apply for MC plus for kids because Sprint canceled their health care. That’s able bodied men and women coming in to get benefits temporarily for food and health care while they beat the streets looking for a new job. THAT’S why and able-bodied person would receive a caseworker and apply for benefits.
There are those on active duty in the armed forces who receive food stamps. I assume they do so because they and their children need to eat and they are not making enough to pay for food and cover other necessities.
I applied for and received food stamps the last year in college because my husband and I were not making enough to feed ourselves and pay for rent and utilities. By relying on assistance for that time, I was able to finish my degrees, graduate and get a decent job.