[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The deployment of race-positive social programs institutionalized the underclass and created a series of perverse incentives, not least of which was the common practice of having ever more children because the state essentially “paid” you to do so.[/quote]

Welfare is not race positive but income and asset based.

I don’t think that welfare paid women to have kids. But it make made is less painful to be reproductively responsible.

You can’t expect teenagers and 20 somethings in destitute situations to be sexually responsible. All they have to do is screw like rabbits. And young girls look for love when there’s nothing else. For young uneducated men, scoring girls is the thing to do. Witness the military despite the edicts from commanders.

But welfare is much better now that fathers are pursued for payments.

We could have avoided a lot of pain by having aggressive, proactive sex education, pills and condoms available for free at school. Science shows that it works.[/quote]

FIH: I think you misunderstand the meaning of “race-positive” versus “race neutral” government social policies. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued the difference far more eloquently than I ever could, and I refer you to his writings on this, along with his very prescient forecast about the outcome and future of the black family and community.

Yes, welfare (in its previous iteration) was race-positive. Yes, it did, in essence, pay for procreation. There is extensive reporting on this, the same reports serving as the underpinnings for welfare reform.

As I said earlier, I believe Sex Ed is an excellent idea. But, to gain traction, you are going to have to attack an element of Black culture that lionizes violence, misogyny and the exploitation of women. Good luck with that and I’m not saying that sarcastically. As Steele points out, Blacks are part of a “protected” class and to speak out about the obvious issues is to run the risk of being labeled a racist.