I'll meet you at like to ask you a question you begin your presentation with the idea that systems create poverty. And I thought that you were going to move in in the direction that you cannot make systems or social systems create poverty, but it seems to me you diverted and then talked about the system of values and habits contribute to the maintenance of quote the culture of poverty in quote.I would like to know then are you suggesting that social and economic situations have less to do with the maintenance of the culture of poverty vanda's or behavior or moral status of those trapped in that situation? I guess I'm agnostic on that question. I mean, I I think this whole the whole debate between conservatives can people hear the whole debate between conservatives and liberals us whether individuals have responsibilities or whether it's the system and mmm larger structural forces individuals no react with instructors and they have responsibility. But you know any marks was obvious obviously any time you think about this you come to some sort of Middle Ground position of at the individuals or react with the structure The Leverage we have to come at it from the point of view of solutions. What can we do that will solve the problem. How can we change the outside forces in which individuals act so that we won't have a ghetto por group and I am and my conclusion. Is that Cash Aid Wang to it? That jobs won't do it. But as long as welfare, is there whether or not created the situation or not and I agree. My book doesn't talk enough about racism. It doesn't go into it just came to be one of your Solutions as long as welfare. Is there not enough people will leave. Just culture into the normal working culture is it doesn't make I don't get into whether one blames them for that or says it's a character flaw. I'm just saying as a social fact unless you deal with welfare. You're not going to solve the problem. Mido that assumes that child welfare. It's a problem in to generate solutions for any problem. It has to be clearly defined and you have to be clear about the assumptions that you are making as part of the solution to the problem here again hearing that welfare is the major problem and that if we solve welfare then we've solved the problem of the urban underclass. I guess it's I guess I I don't accept the idea that the way to solve a problem is to go back to its causes and reverse them. Jesse Jackson used to give up a very evocative speech where he said, you know how to get urine and you're in a dark alley. You don't know which way to go. How do you get out of the alley you back out the way you got in but that's not true. You maybe sometimes the back way is blocked. You can't get out the back way. You have to find a new way that has nothing to do with how you got in. Okay, I'm saying welfare welfare is the key to solving the problem. That doesn't mean that you know, welfare cost. For example, Nick Nick lemon points out that everybody talks about the disintegration of the black family will w e w e b Dubois went to Philadelphia to turn of the century sound exactly the same family patterns the people complain about now before the welfare system even existed 30 years before the welfare system if this is so why you can't say welfare cause that problem, but it may still be but now the only way that you can solve the problem without changing the welfare system, so I reject your your your Assertion that if I say that you have to welfare is the key to solving the problem I'm saying welfare. Cause the problem Let me know I don't believe that at all. Michigan public service bureaucracy cut 83,000 people off of welfare at the direction of the governor 6 months ago. Today only 13% of those people have anywhere near a job and most of those. a low paying jobs so the assumption that if you use or the punitive tactics on the welfare population you can get rid of the underclass. It's patently false. It certainly hasn't worked in Michigan because you doing if they're within the environment of what we're talking about is not just the individual. It is an individual within a certain contacts while the context in Michigan as it is in many places of this country are very high levels of unemployment and the economy which is going down the tubes. So given that situation how can you expect basic reforms in the welfare system to actually generate of the kinds of levels of economic viability the necessary. I don't see it in this particular instance and I don't see it working out of the other instances. Well, my quick answer is that that's why I think the government has to provide a job of Last Resort. The governor of Michigan did not provide any jobs. You just kick people off of the rolls and you can do it really with afdc people. He did it with General Relief people who are 10 to be men and and they tend to be sort of people with drug problems and and a lot of them are mentally ill and it was incredibly cruel. I think you don't and Welfare without replacing with something better have the government provide Last Resort job provide a floor under the whole labor market and then you really are doing something to change the overall economy. What you're doing really is that you sent the recycling the welfare program in terms of different government functions. You haven't really gotten rid of all so you created a job bureaucracy, which is still financed by the government that changes everything, but I'm not so sure if you're still working for minimum wage this value on work, you're really elevated to the highest Pinnacle rather than economically and that's why I say at the base of this really is a conservative definition of the problem. If you're interested in getting people off of welfare into something viable, then the most important thing is not work. Most important thing is economic viability.