WinterBorn
Diamond Member
That sounds like vague Liberal double speak. So why do poor Black communities turn into drug/gang war zones and poor White communities don't?
Vague double speak is all Daniel has.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That sounds like vague Liberal double speak. So why do poor Black communities turn into drug/gang war zones and poor White communities don't?
It is merely your unsubstantiated opinion they don't. Right-wingers seem more willing to be rebels without a Cause and rebel against the Union.That sounds like vague Liberal double speak. So why do poor Black communities turn into drug/gang war zones and poor White communities don't?
All kinds of reasons...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!
You are missing a HUGE component here.Any "race to the bottom" is due to Bad legislative management. Congress could easily tax firms leaving for cheaper labor at the federal minimum wage rate regardless of where they get their labor.
I don't endorse any "race to the bottom". US Labor needs to be able to afford our "first world" economy.You are missing a HUGE component here.
Corporatism/globalism (mind you embraced wholly by the vast majority of Democrats, not just Republicans) has done two things:
1) Dramatically concentrated wealth by dramatically reducing the number of owners of production. I belong to a facebook group that is about the history of the city I live in. Last week someone posted a video from, I believe it was 1982, of a drive through downtown and surrounding areas.
It is impossible not to notice that the vast majority of businesses you saw were locally owned. Today... corporate box stores everywhere with a mere sprinkling of local businesses. Less owners = wealth concentration.
2) Modern slave labor. Globalism and it's never ending search for the lowest cost to manufacture goods has resulted in the modern slave.
They may no longer be chained and bought and sold on blocks. But their compensation for labor is unconscionable. While China releases state controlled data that laughably tries to claim the average worker in China makes about $1200 a month U.S.... the actual known estimates are about 1/3 that. Many working a minimum of 12 hours a day, during peak times it is not unusual for workers to be "encouraged" to work as many as 18.
So let's say they only work 12... that is an average of $1.80/an hour.
What?I don't endorse any "race to the bottom". US Labor needs to be able to afford our "first world" economy.
How about balancing the budget?What?
Where did I say that??
What are you talking about. Why do you always take a conversation to somewhere that has nothing to do with what is discussed?
I am pointing out that simply taxing outsourcers isn't the issue. And then what - you really think the government would do the right thing with the $trillions in tax revenue that would gain?
And who is going to pay for those $trillions?
You will.
That $15 dohicky you buy will now cost $25. Inflation would be staggering. And that would solve nothing.
That does nothing to address the increasing poor population and the shrinking of the middle classHow about balancing the budget?
Some on the left are advocating for equal protection of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation to help solve simple poverty and improve the efficiency of our economy.That does nothing to address the increasing poor population and the shrinking of the middle class
So in other words... dramatically increase the welfare roles because that worked so well with inner city blacks?Some on the left are advocating for equal protection of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation to help solve simple poverty and improve the efficiency of our economy.
You confuse means tested welfare with a more efficient automatic stabilizer. Besides, how well did black codes work.So in other words... dramatically increase the welfare roles because that worked so well with inner city blacks?
1) Crime will rise even higher. Nothing, absolutely nothing drives crime up more than large numbers of people with too much time on their hands.You confuse means tested welfare with a more efficient automatic stabilizer. Besides, how well did black codes work.
Unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our at-will employment laws is more cost effective than means testing and could result in lowering your individual income tax burden since more people will be circulating money and paying general taxes on it. A positive multiplier will ensure Capitalists still get Richer.
More double speak. My thread Black Deaths Matter documents the daily carnage that is going on in poor Black communities a.k.a Inner Cities. Those are not my OPINIONS. Those are FACTS. People like you allow the carnage to continue because your political opinion is more important than innocent Black people being gunned down in their neighborhoods by other Black people. You and the rest of the Democrat minions live in a bubble of denial.It is merely your unsubstantiated opinion they don't. Right-wingers seem more willing to be rebels without a Cause and rebel against the Union.
I don't follow your line of reasoning. Why would persons with recourse to an income for being unemployed accomplish what you allege? Why would they not be more market friendly, and participate more in market based activity while paying general forms of taxes?Crime will rise even higher. Nothing, absolutely nothing drives crime up more than large numbers of people with too much time on their hands.
It is only "doublespeak" if you appeal to ignorance of economics. Do you believe poverty improves civility or causes more incivility under Any form of Capitalism?More double speak. My thread Black Deaths Matter documents the daily carnage that is going on in poor Black communities a.k.a Inner Cities. Those are not my OPINIOINS. Those are FACTS. People like you allow the carnage to continue because your political opinion is more important than innocent Black people being gunned down in their neighborhoods by other Black people. You and the rest of the Democrat minions live in a bubble of denial.
for the record------money making in the hood is not impeded by the receiptI don't follow your line of reasoning. Why would persons with recourse to an income for being unemployed accomplish what you allege? Why would they not be more market friendly, and participate more in market based activity while paying general forms of taxes?
Yes, it is. Means testing in our republic is by definition not very market friendly. Sorry you appeal to right-wing fantasy rather than economics.for the record------money making in the hood is not impeded by the receipt
of entitlements. Sorry for the reality check
sorry-----you are naive. HOOD money is neither reported nor taxed. Lots ofYes, it is. Means testing in our republic is by definition not very market friendly. Sorry you appeal to right-wing fantasy rather than economics.
I haven't read an answer to the question that I have posed to you twice. Answer it and I will answer yours.It is only "doublespeak" if you appeal to ignorance of economics. Do you believe poverty improves civility or causes more incivility under Any form of Capitalism?