Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why is that not working now? And, you keep missing the point in between. How did they "lose perspective" and become homeless if not for a lack of income?
Yes, you are ignoring economics. Why do you believe you are not? Under true Capitalism, only fools and horses have to work. No one is "living off other peoples' income". You are being disingenuous since there is no Right to Work, even in alleged Right to Work States. And, you have no room to talk; you claimed to not have an income so how can anyone, live off your income? All you demonstrate is a lack of ethics and morals not any understanding of economics.
If you stopped appealing to Ignorance of economics, you would know that a multiplier effect means our economy would still benefit even if not all people actually provide labor input to the economy. And, why do You care if you have no Income to be taxed and You don't work since you are retired? All you prove is that you are a false Christian regarding the Poor.
Some people have to do it the hard way? I agree with you that some people may try proper treatment before that happens to them when they had an income. It is too late for that under Capitalism once they no longer have an income. With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, mental healthcare providers could provide more outreach to those individuals.They HAD an income. Then they became addicted or their mental health deteriorated to the point they could not work. Many employee health insurance policies do little for either addiction or mental health.
Get them proper treatment for that BEFORE you give them a check. Then they will be able to reenter the workforce, or they will draw disability (in the case of mental health issues).
Not everyone has the moral fortitude to be Poor. Some have to take Sacred religious orders to do it. Why do you assume no one would work under Capitalism? I don't follow your line of reasoning since "greed is Good" under Capitalism.Back to this "only fools and horses have to work"? If no one works, who pays for all the unemployment compensation and welfare?
If you get money from the gov't, without working, you ARE living off the backs of other people's work.
My money is mostly in a 401k. That is tax deferred. When I pull it out I pay taxes on it.
Oh, FYI, I am not a false Christian. I am not a Christian at all.
There are a great many who escape poverty, and also many well-to-do people that lose everything and end up poor. Whether you make smart or stupid choices, and one's personal work ethic, drive the movement in both directions. Everyone settles, some just settle for fewer material things.I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.
Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.
Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.
It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."
That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.
Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)
However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.
If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR) that would be great!
Some people have to do it the hard way? I agree with you that some people may try proper treatment before that happens to them when they had an income. It is too late for that under Capitalism once they no longer have an income. With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, mental healthcare providers could provide more outreach to those individuals.
Not everyone has the moral fortitude to be Poor. Some have to take Sacred religious orders to do it. Why do you assume no one would work under Capitalism? I don't follow your line of reasoning since "greed is Good" under Capitalism.
Why is it not working now and why do we have the homeless problem we do?Medicaid can provide treatment without giving money to addicts, which will do more harm than good. After they finish rehab they can work and earn money.
Nobody is making anyone work in any at-will employment State. That is where your reasoning doesn't make any sense.You are the one who posted "only fools and horses have to work". My line of reasoning is simple. If you are able to work and provide for yourself, don't try to make others work and give you money. Having safety nets for those who cannot work is fine. But wanting to change a working system just so you don't have to work, and you can have spending money, is rather low.
Why should you get paid for doing nothing, when other have to work for their money?
Poor people are free to be poor.
Why is it not working now and why do we have the homeless problem we do?
That does not include historical slavery or black codes.Poor people are free to be poor.
Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean more efficient market participation.Plenty of reasons. The main one is a lack of comprehensive mental healthcare and addiction care.
Nobody is making anyone work in any at-will employment State. That is where your reasoning doesn't make any sense.
Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed could mean more efficient market participation.
Especially not in alleged right to work States.People who want to raise a family, have a home, send their kids to college, enjoy eating good food, take vacations, have hobbies, are all working to have those things.
They do not expect someone else to work so they can have enough.
Why do you believe economics doesn't work with more full employment of capital resources?No, it couldn't. If it was changed into the system you want, then means testing would be added to avoid fraud. And it would be a duplication of welfare.
I know you want a check for sitting at home, no questions asked, but that won't happen.
Why will you not take responsibility for taking care of your own needs?
Especially not in alleged right to work States.
From one perspective, there is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment since anyone can be bought under Capitalism.
That is getting bought since you don't do it for free. Capitalism merely requires capital based morality for a market friendly price.No one can be bought. They can be paid to do things, but they are not owned.
People take responsibility for what they want and need, and they go to work to earn they money to do it.
You refuse to answer why you will not take responsibility for your own needs.
Why do you believe economics doesn't work with more full employment of capital resources?
