Why do poor communities exist in America?

[WinterBorn]

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need more worth for pay purposes.

And, yes simple poverty can be easily solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through equal protection of the at-will employment laws.

Jeez, you are still spouting this nonsense? What you are talking about is welfare, pure & simple. But since welfare requires a means test (to show you actually do not have the resources to support yourself), you want to put the burden on unemployment compensation.

Two points about your idea:
#1 - There is already equal protection under the law. If you quit your job or you are fired by your employer, you lose your paycheck and the employer loses your labor.

#2 - Means testing is simply determining whether you need assistance or you just want assistance. Needing money to be able to eat and have shelter is something people are willing to provide. Wanting more money so you can party or chase women is not.


And you have never stated why you think people who quit a job should be compensated for it.

 

[danielpalos]

What you are talking about is welfare, pure & simple.

That is your appeal to ignorance. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement. Means tested welfare has nothing to do with unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is your appeal to ignorance. Equal protection of the laws is an entitlement. Means tested welfare has nothing to do with unemployment compensation.

And unemployment compensation has nothing to do with eliminating poverty. The entire reason for the existence of UC is to provide temporary assistance to those who lost their job through no fault of their own. And it is done without tax payer money.

 

[danielpalos]

And unemployment compensation has nothing to do with eliminating poverty.

Do you really believe we would still have a homeless problem if the homeless could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

 

[danielpalos]

The entire reason for the existence of UC is to provide temporary assistance to those who lost their job through no fault of their own.

Is because they did not have the understanding of economics we have now, and segregation was still public policy, along with black codes. And, who cares what extra-Constitutional rationale legislators came up with back then when it does not conform to equal protection of the laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you really believe we would still have a homeless problem if the homeless could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

Yes, I do. How do the homeless apply for benefits when they have no address or ID? How will they receive help for their mental issues and substance abuse problems if you just hand them money? We have been through this before and you still don't have the answers.

Why do you think UC would solve the problem when welfare programs did not? Do you really think the means testing eliminated any homeless person from welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I do. How do the homeless apply for benefits when they have no address or ID? How will they receive help for their mental issues and substance abuse problems if you just hand them money? We have been through this before and you still don't have the answers.

Why do you think UC would solve the problem when welfare programs did not? Do you really think the means testing eliminated any homeless person from welfare?

Simply because you right-wingers have no capital based solutions but only your typical socialism on a national basis does not mean no one else has any solutions. Unemployment compensation is an Income. What can persons do with an Income under Any form of Capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you think UC would solve the problem when welfare programs did not?

Simple. Because UC is an automatic stabilizer.

 

[WinterBorn]

Is because they did not have the understanding of economics we have now, and segregation was still public policy, along with black codes. And, who cares what extra-Constitutional rationale legislators came up with back then when it does not conform to equal protection of the laws.

Your attempts to use "equal protection of the laws" in this situation is simply dishonest. There is already equality under the law.

What you want is for every single citizen to be able to get anything another citizen has. A good analogy would be this: My friend suffered a serious back injury. He has a prescription for percocet. I want to get percocets too. Why can't I? We could eliminate common pain in our country if everyone could get percocets for simply being here.

 

[danielpalos]

Your attempts to use "equal protection of the laws" in this situation is simply dishonest. There is already equality under the law.

What you want is for every single citizen to be able to get anything another citizen has. A good analogy would be this: My friend suffered a serious back injury. He has a prescription for percocet. I want to get percocets too. Why can't I? We could eliminate common pain in our country if everyone could get percocets for simply being here.

How is equal protection of the laws dishonest? It is right-wingers who have nothing but immoral and intellectual filth of false witness bearing fallacy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Simple. Because UC is an automatic stabilizer.

No it is not. And in order for it to work the way you want, it would have to be tax payer supported. You want it to be tax payer supported, have no limitations on how long you draw it, require no effort to get a job, require no ID or address to draw a check, and have no means test to show you actually need it.

Other than the means testing, that is welfare.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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!

Keynesian economics is why things are the way they are.

Final answer.

Who do you think gets all of that freshly printed currency first?

What do you think they do with it when they get it?

They insert into the economy in a way that only benefits them. And more often in a way that keeps that same rotation going.

Duh.

What you get out of it is the privilege (at the barrel of a government gun, unfortunately) of paying the interest on those bonds that the federal reserve bought with a check which was drawn on an account that had nothing in it, along with all of the other down sides to inflation. Of which there are many.

 

[WinterBorn]

How is equal protection of the laws dishonest? It is right-wingers who have nothing but immoral and intellectual filth of false witness bearing fallacy.

I am not bearing false witness at all. Show me one example of me doing so or admit it is a lie.

Equal protection laws are not dishonest and I never said they were. I said that YOU were dishonest in your claims about the equal protection laws.

 

[danielpalos]

No it is not.

Yes, it is. You are simply clueless and Causeless and love your own opinion more than Constitutional law.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not bearing false witness at all. Show me one example of me doing so or admit it is a lie.

Equal protection laws are not dishonest and I never said they were. I said that YOU were dishonest in your claims about the equal protection laws.

I am advocating for equal protection of the laws. You are merely making up right-wing fantasy and are clueless and Causeless.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am advocating for equal protection of the laws. You are merely making up right-wing fantasy and are clueless and Causeless.

Another example of why your idea is ridiculous.

Answer this simple question. I am retired. During my working career I planned ahead for my retirement, and currently have a substantial amount of money from my 401k. But, since I do not work, should I be able to draw an additional $31,200 a year from the tax payers?

 

[danielpalos]

Another example of why your idea is ridiculous.

Another example of how you have nothing but judgementalism instead of any valid arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Another example of why your idea is ridiculous.

Answer this simple question. I am retired. During my working career I planned ahead for my retirement, and currently have a substantial amount of money from my 401k. But, since I do not work, should I be able to draw an additional $31,200 a year from the tax payers?

Are you making more than the unemployment compensation wage? If you make more than that, why would you need unemployment compensation.

 

[irosie91]

Do you really believe we would still have a homeless problem if the homeless could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

yes

 

[danielpalos]

yes

Why is that? And, having some people "camping out' is not the same as a Problem with homelessness.