Racism in California: Historic opportunity denied to black man.

That's a pretty accurate description of the AOC wing. Nancy Pelousy would join in except it can't lift its leg that high any more.

I'm just one person.

 

So now you think that people become omniscient.

 

This opinion doesn't do anything to help the conservative cause. It is just an ugly opinion without any evidence or merit. California is a hopelessly liberal state. What else could common sense tell you otherwise than politics is what it is.

 

Ok.

Sigh. You've not been paying attention? We no longer need evidence or merit. Just our feelz! And our woke!

 

I try to point out misinformation. Nothing more than that.

 

So wait, are you saying that sometimes the outcomes for non-white people could be due to factors other than race???? This is some radical stuff!!!

 

One in that group, in the sense that your claim is common.

And no, it's not a valid description whatsoever.

 

1) It has nothing to do with 'wishes' - it's ENTIRELY pragmatic. Give people the choice - to be a worthwhile investment of public funds, or to go it alone. There is nothing more practical, logical, just, or equitable than that. I don't 'wish' anything other than a more just and equitable system.

2) Exactly .. there is no 'blame'. If you know from the outset that you'll need to demonstrate financial responsibility to be eligible for public assistance, then you'll do what you need to do to ensure your access is protected. Those who CHOOSE not to secure that future access won't be 'blamed' for their ineligibility, since they've opted out of contention in the first place. They're not even in the picture! As for need, that can only be determined equitably and justly by measures OTHER than money. As it is, a rich man could blow all his wealth in a weekend, then cry poor and be eligible - while those in genuine need go without. And that's a system you defend?

3) There are no measures to show 'need' in our current systems. The worst possible measure of need is your bank balance. Need must be measured in itself .. and need is always far more apparent in behaviour/habits. That's exactly why banks use behaviour/habits as a determinant of suitability for provision of funds.

4) Abuse means 'not used for its intended purpose'. Since the intended purpose of Welfare is short term support for building a pathway out of poverty, it follows that an enormous proportion of welfare funds is being abused.

5) No, it won't. If people secure their eligibility for benefits, why would they be upset?. On the other hand, if 'despair' is experienced by those who chose not to secure their eligibility, then later regret it .. why in hell should that even factor in? That's like feeling bad for people who buy $300 shoes they can't afford, and who then regret it. Why are you defending such people, at all? What's your purpose in enabling that kind of infantile behaviour? FTR, I grew up poor too. I've worked amongst the poor for much of my professional life, also. I know only too well the habits which keep First Worlders in poverty.

6) There is no supposition - it's basic physics. Cause and effect. If you are genuinely in need, you will do everything in your power to escape the situation you are in. There are only a few reasons why people deliberately sabotage their chances, and none of them are good: a) they aren't genuinely poor, b) they believe themselves entitled to the fruits of the labor of others, or c) the Welfare State has convinced them that self-discipline and industry are not necessary for survival. In many cases it's all three.

7) And yet we see less 'incentive' with every passing year. The Welfare State has eroded motivation to a point where we're almost helpless. We've abandoned the traditional working class bullwarks against poverty (family and private property), and have been enabled to abandon self-discipline.

 

Are you another one of these folk who think grown adults don't realise that spending on 'fun and comforts' will not help them save for the future? IOW, that such people are stupider than children (who do know that saving means sacrifice).

 

I can't believe they're saying such things out loud!

 

Yep they don't.

 

Sounds dangerous.

 

So you believe grown adults are no more capable of making sound decisions than seven year olds?

 

OMG, I nearly died when I read it. So much hate!

 

A substantial portion, yep.

 

Well EXCuse ME!

​

I voted for the recall based on his record and not,
gender, race/color, sexual preference.
First, This Or That is a shameful premise who seek "equality".


STOP Categorizing & Sub Dividing the Peoples!


Moi

The Media! Get It Or Not!​

 

I used to think Steve Martin was funny. Then I realized he is white.

 

What does society normally do with adults who can't function above the level of a young child? They require guardianship, no? They're deemed not able to care for themselves.

 

So is Hannah Gadsby, the World's Least Funny Comedian, but xhe gets a pass.

 

Not being omniscient does not make you a young child.

 

You've claimed that a 'substantial proportion' of adults are less able to make responsible decisions than a child. We don't allow children to rent an apartment, or drive a car, or hold a job, or get married, or run a business/govt. We act on their behalf, BECAUSE they can't be trusted to make responsible choices.

What is that you're trying to avoid saying about these adults?

 

This part is you.

 

You are wrong, for reasons already given. Need is the reason for assistance.

It's really that simple. Some will abuse the system, no matter what the system is, but you don't toss out the baby with bathwater.

You have failed to counter my argument. Your only counter is your fanciful musings about what you think reality is, how people you think *should* act, none of which, right or wrong, is used as a basis for, nor has any relevancy towards, determining need.

You know what the basis for determining need is?

1. Ability to work, or lack thereof.
2. net worth, cash in bank.
3. income level.
4. Any handicaps, mental issues, medical issues, etc.
5. Children, child care needs, etc.

All the crap you mention is how you wish people would be.

That's not how it works.

Get over it. now, I'm not going to continue this debate. Your repeating the same stuff doesn't counter the above.

You are not a liberal.

 

We're not discussing the very aged, the very young, and the disabled. We're discussing everyone else .. IOW the majority of those collecting benefits.

And there is NOTHING cruel about giving people a choice. It's cruel to remove that choice, and thus create more poverty.