CdesignProponentsist wrote: FACT-MAN-2 wrote: Imagination Theory wrote: CdesignProponentsist wrote:
From the government to welfare recipient to the crack dealer to the gold watch manufacturer.
That was uncalled for. Those are stereotypes. I guess people on welfare only do crack and wear gold, they don't eat or rent or shop for clothes and electronics, nope, just crack and gold.
I think he meant that crack dealers wear gold, but this kind of racially biased
comment is uncalled for pond scum language. It's hard to imagine people in this day and age still spout this kind of nonsense, even harder to imagine they actually believe it. It's dumber than a box of razor wire.
What "race" is a welfare recipient FACT-MAN? It seems to me you are the one generalizing all recipients as crack smoking welfare recipients of a particular race. That's pretty bigoted if you ask me.
Nobody asked you.
If you're unable to decode your own language I can't help you. Most ordinary Americans can. It can only have one meaning."From the government to welfare recipient to the crack dealer to the gold watch manufacturer."
If that's not a generalization, and a stereotypical one at that, I don't know what is.
Crack cocaine became ubiquitous in poor black communities and neighborhoods by the 1980's and crack dealers became notorious for their gold necklaces and ear pieces and watch bands. You didn't invent that language out of thin air, did you?
Crack cocaine was essentially unhreard of in the white community.
This is common knowledge among law enforcement, academics, social workers, and health practitioner's who work in such neighborhoods. You appear to be too far remved from the scene to be aware of this, I dunno, but unware of it you appear to be.
So it seems your premature ad hominem attack has backfired on you.
So you say, but I think you need to look up the meaning of the term "ad hominem." I didn't attack you or your character, I criicized your use of an obsolete characterization.
Secondly my statement was not generalizing, it was pointing to a problem among
recipients. It is inefficient to merely cut checks and dole them out. It is far more efficient to put the money into resources that cannot be abused by recipients and into programs that work to remove the recipients from the situation that they are in, like work training programs, addiction treatment, counseling, food and necessities. Not a fucking check.
Checks haven't been used since around the year 2000 or 2002. It's all done by bank cards and they are limited in what they can be used to pay for, i.e., you can't buy liqour with them or pet food or even toiletries.
All the things you mentioned have been tried and tried again, with varying degrees of success. Job training programs are essentially a waste of time when there's no economy and no jobs.
The key to welfare today is the five year limit that's been on it since 1996.
You're in bad need of an update on your knowledge of how all this works and what its rules are and the fact that crack cocaine has largely been eradicated from poor black communities.
Do you think it's possibe to envision time when poverty will be at zero in America? Before you answer, be sure to take a look at the income inequality scales.
The Head Start program was acknowledged by nearly everyone except Republicans to be a positive force for increasing educational achievement in poor communities and thus providing for better economic opportunities, but sequester cuts ended that program in one fell swoop, thanks to Republican intransigence.