Why do poor communities exist in America?

[WinterBorn]

You lack credibility by not having any valid arguments. Not understanding the concepts and refusing to ask questions only indicates bigotry not ethics or morals.

I understand the concepts quite well.

As for asking questions, why would I? You never answer them.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, your right-wing insistence on a work ethic from the Age of Iron can be considered a form of Religion.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, your right-wing insistence on a work ethic from the Age of Iron can be considered a form of Religion.

Working to support yourself and your family is an Iron Age religion? WTF? No, it is simply being responsible.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope I have repeatedly stated valiud rebuttals which can only dodge and weave to avoid.

There is no abridgement under the law.

The law is employment at-will. A public policy abridges that privilege and immunity for unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

None of which constitutes a violation of equal protection under the law.

Since you don't need Cause to legally quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State, Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being equally free; there is no basis to deny or disparage that legal privilege and immunity for any other public policy enacted by the Legislature.

 

[danielpalos]

I understand the concepts quite well.

As for asking questions, why would I? You never answer them.

Since you don't need Cause to legally quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State, Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being equally free; there is no basis to deny or disparage that legal privilege and immunity for any other public policy enacted by the Legislature.

 

[danielpalos]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Yes, it does for First Amendment purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Working to support yourself and your family is an Iron Age religion? WTF? No, it is simply being responsible.

Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State can seem like a Religious point of view since you eschew ethics for the subjective value of morals.

 

[wamose]

When you get a combination of stupidity and laziness, you generally end up with a poor person.

 

[danielpalos]

When you get a combination of stupidity and laziness, you generally end up with a poor person.

Why do you believe that? Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The law is employment at-will. A public policy abridges that privilege and immunity for unemployment compensation.

No that is not the law

 

[Soupnazi630]

Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State can seem like a Religious point of view since you eschew ethics for the subjective value of morals.

It is unethical to eschew a word ethic.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Since you don't need Cause to legally quit on an at-will basis in an at-will employment State, Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being equally free; there is no basis to deny or disparage that legal privilege and immunity for any other public policy enacted by the Legislature.

You do not need cause to quite in any state

Your entire premise is rooted in a fallacy gthus proving you are a liar

 

[WinterBorn]

The law is employment at-will. A public policy abridges that privilege and immunity for unemployment compensation.

Repeating the same thing, while ignoring that UC does not abridge any privilege or immunity, is meaningless.

 

[WinterBorn]

Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State can seem like a Religious point of view since you eschew ethics for the subjective value of morals.

I do not require a work ethic for anyone other than my own employees. And my employees have always been well rewarded for theirs.

You are free to not have a work ethic. However, if you eschew a work ethic you also eschew the rewards that come with it. Demanding that you do not need a work ethic, and the turning around and demanding an income, especially when that income is taken from those who do have a work ethic, is laughably hypocritical.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it does for First Amendment purposes.

No it does not. And there is no 1st amendment purpose in this debate.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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!

Because they're a result of the failed parts of socialist policies. Right wing people want the individual to take responsibility, to reap what they so, to contribute to society. Left wing people what society to help them to pay for them and when they've sowed nothing, they have nothing. And countries are still paying for these failed bits of socialism, called national debt.

 

[wamose]

Why do you believe that? Corporate welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

The only President I ever saw fighting corporate welfare was Donald Trump. That's why the establishment hated him so much.

 

[WinterBorn]

The only President I ever saw fighting corporate welfare was Donald Trump. That's why the establishment hated him so much.

President Trump handed the corporate world some pretty impressive tax breaks.

 

[danielpalos]

Repeating the same thing, while ignoring that UC does not abridge any privilege or immunity, is meaningless.

Of course it does. It ignores at-will employment law and those privileges and immunities already established at law by the Legislative Act.