>I don't want to def
end my claims, I better shytpost to avoid having to do so.
You sound like a troll, because clearly you should have known the historical context of these political parties if you are claiming that i am incorrect. So in the first instance I defined Liberal the same way it is defined now, except that the liberals then would have then been in the Republican Party and were in support of the abolition of slavery. They are the party of Lincoln. Democrats during that period were supporters of the institution of slavery and they were by and large Southerners. They were your conservatives. The fact that you don't know those historical points is your issue.
In the second instance the welfare policy that I addressed was called the "man in the house rule." It is well documented who created the rule (Conservative Republican Family Values a$$holes) and what the rule has historically done. Here is article from 1992 after the LA Riots discussing that particular policy after Conservatives Republicans lamented that the lack of family values is the reason for the issues among poor African Americans.
Welfare's unintended consequences
Glenn McNatt
May 18, 1992|By Glenn McNatt
ONE OF the crueler ironies in the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots has been the suggestion, particularly on the part of conservatives, that the real cause of the violence was not racism or poverty but crumbling inner-city families.
The inner-city family has fallen apart, the argument goes, and thus an entire generation of young people has come of age without proper "values." It's all the fault of the liberal social welfare policies of the 1960s, President Bush said recently.
That's a neat formula for evading the responsibility three successive GOP administrations bear for the neglect of America's cities.
The irony, of course, is that conservatives were the ones who insisted on making family breakups a condition for welfare. Remember the "man in the house" rule? That was the one that said families couldn't get assistance if there was an able-bodied man in the house. It was enacted because opponents of welfare, particularly Southern conservatives, simply couldn't abide the idea of government "handouts" to male heads-of-household... ."
So if a man lost his job, he literally had to leave home if he wanted his children to be eligible for government surplus cheese, beans and peanut butter. Somehow conservatives persuaded themselves that this encouraged "family values."
With the advantage of 20-20 hindsight it's easy to see how the policy had exactly the opposite effect. It accelerated the fragmentation of poor families at just the time low-skilled factory jobs were disappearing. The expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s coincided with the decline of the factory economy in the worst possible way because the no-man-in-the-house rule actually encouraged the breakup of stable, two-parent families.
Conservatives like to talk about the "law of unintended consequences" -- by which they mean the difficulty of predicting the long-term effects of government social policies. Welfare hasn't worked, they argue, because it only produces more dependency.
Yet dependency clearly is a function of the great increase in single-parent, female-headed households over the last 20 years. And that, in turn, was at least in part an unintended consequence of punitive welfare rules that forced poor men to chose between abandoning their children or watching them starve. We are still paying for that mean-spirited policy in Los Angeles and other cities across America.
Doubtless other factors played a role in the break-up of two-parent families over the last generation -- higher divorce rates, teen pregnancy, the corrosive commercial values purveyed by popular music, movies and television. But the no "man in the house" rule was a classic example of how a government social policy aimed at assisting poor families actually undermined them.
If you doubt that, consider this: What would the result have been if the rule had required just the opposite of what it in fact demanded of poor families -- that is, in order to receive assistance, both parents had to live at home with their children?
Glenn McNatt is an editorial writer for The Sun and Evening Sun.
Welfare's unintended consequences
Welfare expands in the 1960s | Soc 315 – Social Welfare
What do want to know about Dr. King's poor people campaign and for that President Lydon Johnson's war on poverty?
War on Poverty - Wikipedia
Poor People's Campaign - Wikipedia
Poor People's Campaign
If you care to read more on the subject of the Black family you can read more a scholarly paper like the one from University of Wisconsin, which shows the growth of the single mothers heading African American families. It was actually rare up until the 1960's:
"...
Between 1960 and 1985, female-headed families grew from 20.6 to 43.7 percent of all black families, compared to growth from 8.4 to 12 percent for white families.' Recent estimates suggest that more than half of all black families are headed by women... ."
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc121e.pdf
African Americans also had the highest marriage rates in America up until the 1960's and 1970's.
BlackDemographics.com | MARRIAGE
