Kinda, sorta...the funny thing is whites have always been the MAJORITY of welfare recipients
Kinda, sorta...the funny thing is whites have always been the MAJORITY of welfare recipients
Breh, he is right. Capitalism is purely Amoral. It's goal, businesses specifically, is to make money. It isn't to enrich anyone but those who run
amoral is bs and you know it. it's literally impossible to not have morals and ethics with something that is selected and developed by humans for the benefit of those humans and not other humans.
We do have a mixed economy. due to 1 /3 being pumped in by the Fed Government ----- butAre we having this convo while pretending that corporations don't run and control that system and even direct our politics???
amoral is bs and you know it. it's literally impossible to not have morals and ethics with something that is selected and developed by humans for the benefit of those humans and not other humans.
Easy...A lot of people are living off the system. Furthermore, I know a lot of cats who get disability checks(mental). This helps to keep black people down. You are only allowed to earn so much money if you get a SSI check. My homeboy lives in a fairly new two-story home---his rent is $97 a month.How does welfare promote that?
another reason to cut it.welfare is a perm crutch
but since cacs will never reform the policies that need to be changed
and continue to wage a war on the poor
shyt will be what it is
the funny thing is whites have always been the MAJORITY of welfare recipients
I don't see him as attacking us at all. I'm saying his advice is outdated.
Maybe with the older generations but people in Generation Y have no Interest in sitting on welfare all day.
The amount of people under 30 who have any interest in claiming welfare is small.
He is rehashing old advice which brings nothing to the table. In 2015 welfare isn't a big a problem as it was in 1995 or 1985
@higher learning posters, lol.
Breh, he is right. Capitalism is purely Amoral. It's goal, businesses specifically, is to make money. It isn't to enrich anyone but those who run
the business.
On the flipside, if doing charitable acts makes the most business sense, a business will do that. It doesn't operate to destroy, but that happens to be
a byproduct of capitalism that operates without legal restraint. Helping folks out who are poor and disadvantaged happens to not be profitable more often
than not, and businesses can't operate solely on ethics, they have to operate independent of them. It is the Government, and the Government is defined
as "the people", that has the responsibility to see how far we let capitalism push before we enact restrictions. Business is just business, though people who
run said businesses can be immoral.
his argument is that a certain segment of the population shouldn't have access to a government lifeline. if you knew first hand anything about the history of racism and economic discrimination in this country you wouldn't ask me that question. other ethnic groups have been able to improve their economic condition through hard work and with favorable capital and loan schemes and hiring practices that benefited them throughout the decades. if they were so superior to AA why did they have to leave other continents to come over here? have you witnessed the riots and austerity mess in europe the past few years? one example is red lining where banks wouldn't finance mortgages to certain areas of inner cities and rot and decay ensued. more recently we've witnessed the predator loans aimed at mostly minorities. the b.s. doesn't seem to end.
There was a big uproar in the media and within political circles when the Republican party began its attempts to cutback on welfare. Moreover, I don't think you can honestly say that welfare doesn't remain a steady issue, especially in today's economy and when government spending is still a point of contention.
Don't you live in London?![]()
Oh I agree with this but like I said those who get left behind probably all have that dream of doing better would we agree on that? Saying that they should use it to put more fuel in the fire to escape instead of hoping that a person will just pull them out of the trouble. That also leads IMO to cats doing nothing waiting for those few that make it out to help on some Hammer type stuff and when they don't its a problem. That's another reason I don't like it. I think most people want a positive agenda but esp when you come from a similar situation honestly its hard to not see most as just wanting to be lazy. That's just real. If you did something and you know your man has the same talents as you what would you think at least on a surface level?I get you. I just find that in the interest of change, those who hunger for it the most are those who NEED it the most.
If I suddenly have a windfall of millions, leave the hood, flee to greener pastures and give up my fight because "I finally got mine" then
I did not do anything to further positive change. That doesn't mean I can't still fight and give to causes, but it is very likely that
a man will want to enjoy himself when he finally doesn't have to scrape and scratch for every little thing.
It is absolutely everyone's prerogative to live out their days how they want, but the most comfortable, and least inconvenienced of us,
will opt not to participate because they fear either rocking the boat and changing things for themselves, or they aren't as invested
in the advancement of a positive agenda because they currently have the means to ignore it.
I'm pretty sure he wants to remove individual welfare in its totality. I won't deny that removal of individual welfare would have an adverse disparate impact on blacks though. But then again, what doesn't?
This is true, breh, but that is the fault of man, not the system itself. Ideally, capitalism would let everybody play and get it how they want.in idea yes.
in practice and especially the way it's done in the US it's not amoral.
if we aren't attaching the concept to a nation ( aka the thing that it's applied to , lol ) then whats the point of even talking about it.
Capitalism doesn't exist without all the reasons and nations of it's existence. The only capitalism that we've ever known is not amoral.
I'm pretty sure he wants to remove individual welfare in its totality. I won't deny that removal of individual welfare would have an adverse disparate impact on blacks though. But then again, what doesn't?