-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Diplomatic genius Kushner: Black people don't want to be successful
- Thread starter notimp
- Start date
- Views 1,850
- Replies 12
Haven't watched the video but as a general premise it makes sense.
Have you been to the ghettos and seen what at least the US take on welfare does to people?
You deny them the opportunity to do any work on the side (lest they lose it because they got caught working), deny them pets, whatever that nonsense with food stamps is (go on the dole here you get money in your account and are expected to make your own way), deny them a garden in most cases and compound that all with a shit tier education. All this on top of the "whatever you give for free is inherently less valuable" notion.
You get a nice line in utter dejection or maybe serious apathy and even those that do attempt to make something (easier said than done if you have no particularly easy opportunities or investment in your local(ish) area) often experience a crabs in a bucket concept, be it in general or having to try to drag people up with you).
This applies whatever your skin colour is, just happens there are a lot of black people in the baseline position that are in some ways visible (though in plenty not).
Have you been to the ghettos and seen what at least the US take on welfare does to people?
You deny them the opportunity to do any work on the side (lest they lose it because they got caught working), deny them pets, whatever that nonsense with food stamps is (go on the dole here you get money in your account and are expected to make your own way), deny them a garden in most cases and compound that all with a shit tier education. All this on top of the "whatever you give for free is inherently less valuable" notion.
You get a nice line in utter dejection or maybe serious apathy and even those that do attempt to make something (easier said than done if you have no particularly easy opportunities or investment in your local(ish) area) often experience a crabs in a bucket concept, be it in general or having to try to drag people up with you).
This applies whatever your skin colour is, just happens there are a lot of black people in the baseline position that are in some ways visible (though in plenty not).
DIplomatic genius Kushner, then obviously is just the medicine they needed?
More distinctly - his FOX News interview is just the what they needed?
Because their reactions were as follows:
More distinctly - his FOX News interview is just the what they needed?
Because their reactions were as follows:
Oh. Trust fund baby slumlord Kushner who has enriched himself in the WH takes the silver spoon out of his mouth long enough to insert his foot with a racist trope about Black people and success. 🙄 https://t.co/rMN01O9WQm
— Rep. Gwen Moore (@RepGwenMoore) October 26, 2020
Last edited by notimp,
The welfare system is basically designed to keep poor people poor while enriching the Government that runs the programs. He's also right about people not wanting to be successful. It takes hard work and dedication to become successful and most people that aren't are just too lazy to educate themselves on the proper methods for success. They are over weight and depend on hand outs and refuse to lift a finger to help themselves. All they care about is having cool shoes, a cellphone and are addicted to drugs. Though I don't think that only applies to black people, but just welfare queens in general.
yeah, it's definitely a culture problem which I imagine predates welfare but is worsened by it in part. in brazil there's a lot of this toxic culture, criminality and sex cult etc in poorer regions.
No, thats what organized charity is about. Imho.
Social welfare is a system that allows for the establishment of minimum standards to keep people from falling into absolute poverty (becoming dependent on charity, finding it hard to get away from it) at the first inkling of an economic shock.
The difference is, that social welfare gets distributed 'no questions asked' as long as you adhere to minimum standards of an often free market state.
Social welfare almost always is coupled to measures of reeducation, requalification, and so on...
Charity is not. Charity is "we all profit if you - from now on always get charity".
The functional difference comes from:
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-charity-and-welfare
Begging for help gets you into structural dependency, where your efforts result in/come up to 'sustaining your malaise'.
Social welfare is about enabling you to put your efforts towards reintegration into the jobs market. Getting you a minimum amount of financial aid, pretty much no questions asked, and then focusing on reintegration and requalification with the help provided. Again - often in free market economies.
The point that 'no no - only real threat of starvation and homelessness will make people want to work again - so its needed' is an ultra right wing populist construct and a fallacy.
(*Kicking the people that are already on the floor to feel better about what little you have achieved, by making the perceived 'difference' feel larger.*)In fact the opposite is true. Desperation, social ostracizing and a lack of perspective kick in, you'd find it hard to maintain a bank account and a postal address (being homeless...), and therefore almost impossible to regain employment.
Not many companies out there hiring dockworkers waiting in front of the company gates in the morning, these days.... Also if those companies dont grow (looking at todays economy), they'd also maintain, not ease, structural suffering. ("No way out.") This also goes against leftist sensibilities, btw.
Last edited by notimp,
That may be the goal, what are the results though (we have good stats from before and after the ramp up of such programs, and key changes within them)? Indeed would you sooner adopt the US model for where you are at or go the other way and suggest the US adopt the model seen where you are at (or one of the many takes Europe has on the matter)?
So if it is not apples for apples and instead an ideal implementation vs reality of the one that got implemented then has it achieved a desirable outcome?
Kushners statement absolutely was racist.
Dude is a moron who had the good fortune to be porking a surprise politico's daughter (it is not what you know but who you know and all that). Sucks that he holds some nominal power but ultimately who cares. That said I have still not watched the video so will probably have to get around to that at some point as unfortunately I struggle to be able to take such notions at face value these days.
The underlying premise though has something to ponder. Has the social deprivation of the US black populace seen some kind of both economic difficulty but also psychological, and, in as much as there is a separate culture revolving around so boring concepts as race/skin colour, possibly also cultural?
I would say yeah there is. Seen aspects of it and it follows from what we know of economics*, psychology** and can also be observed (not to mention seen elsewhere in notions of things like "class traitor"***).
*again not what you know but who you know. If there is nobody around to help your business (I have some nice tools but there is a CNC shop down the road for when I want to get serious, several come to think of it, if there were none I am then doing the outlay to get such gear myself and skill up on it) or even invest in it, or buy from it, or insure it because a mob burns it down every 10 years or so... Moving is not a cheap hobby and should you also have to do that while also dragging a couple of siblings and parents along for the ride that also makes for a barrier to entry.
**standard institutionalisation really. Seen also in later life divorced women fairly often, prisoners, military (there is a reason ex military = ex employable), politicians when they leave office, academics in when they attempt that real world lark, psych patients and others forced to reskill in a world that left them behind. Remove someone's agency and you grind them down, wind in a nice dose of economic hardship and lack of any kind of safety net and yeah.
***do we need to go through the various "black cinema", academics, music, various "if you vote X then you are not...", thought pieces on people selling out/forsaking their identity and what have you? It is hard to leave a cult and all you know, even if they are demonstrably awful for your future well being.
True to a point, but not in principle.
Id insist, that the principle is to enable people to be viable for the job market - as a goal that has to be maintained, and that costs money.
Weither you can integrate enough people "quickly" into the low paying jobs market (service sector) to prevent societal upheaval (lets say after an economic shock), forces your actions. And in that sense you see the US falling back on 'social welfare tactics' (helicopter money, no questions asked), to prevent higher long term unemployment.
Right wing radical populist argument then always is - but they'll take that money and "become addicrted to it" and "loose all motivation to work again" - but thats a fallacy. A fallacy conservatives make sure persists, btw.
Because f.e. social ostracising is promoted by them. (Which to a certain extent is fine, I guess.(motivation)) But at least the prerequisits for 'getting back into the jobmarket' are maintained.So in other words 'getting too cosy drawing income from being on social welfare' benefits - structurally - ALWAYS, is less of a risk than having anyone falling out of a job becoming long term unemployable - in todays economy. (Low level entry jobs, that then grow into better wage jobs, are harder and harder to find. So qualification is a must, and also not free.)
So who pays for qualification, the moment no more barista jobs are needed? And what are the prerequisites for qualification? (Not being homeless, having a bank account, being able to call you up, not having you fall on drug use, to 'cope' with life ...)
Last edited by notimp,
The lose all motivation to work bit is quite dubious from where I sit. We see elements of it in trust fund types, big insurance payouts, lottery wins and the like however so hardly absent or an unknown concept.
As far as the rest. I would not seek the abolition of such systems (I quite like a lot of the European offerings here) so not sure where most of that was coming from or being aimed at. I would however say big daddy government vs big daddy church charity are two sides of the same coin when it comes to handouts as far as I am concerned, though usually ineffective in different ways.
Still "is to enable people to be viable for the job market"
Is it effective at that?
As far as the rest. I would not seek the abolition of such systems (I quite like a lot of the European offerings here) so not sure where most of that was coming from or being aimed at. I would however say big daddy government vs big daddy church charity are two sides of the same coin when it comes to handouts as far as I am concerned, though usually ineffective in different ways.
Still "is to enable people to be viable for the job market"
Is it effective at that?
Lottery wins? Boy, your concept of society is.... chance based..
But no - I agree, which is also why I'm not in favor of universal basic income as a measure, btw (give money, axe social benefits ('help options'), leave the rest to the market).
But the point still is, if you are the beneficiary of a family grant, or a lottery winner - you dont face the social stigma of being unemployed. Which is very real. Also you are riding edge cases, because even people that have their life made, because of f.e. a family fund, seldomly end up 'without a profession' long term.
So there is some driving motivation that comes not from 'simply wanting to sustain yourself'.
Probably from somewhere within the Maslow chart.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
But no - I agree, which is also why I'm not in favor of universal basic income as a measure, btw (give money, axe social benefits ('help options'), leave the rest to the market).
But the point still is, if you are the beneficiary of a family grant, or a lottery winner - you dont face the social stigma of being unemployed. Which is very real. Also you are riding edge cases, because even people that have their life made, because of f.e. a family fund, seldomly end up 'without a profession' long term.
So there is some driving motivation that comes not from 'simply wanting to sustain yourself'.
Probably from somewhere within the Maslow chart.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Last edited by notimp,
I reckon UBI could work after a fashion if done well and with proper incentives. Might even be cheaper than now.
As far as the rich types not having a job then I guess you have not seen much of those either. The old money dislikes the nouveau riche, though often needs them because old money had too many kids that took the life of leisure path, or maybe just wants a bit more money to mingle in theirmoney laund... private bank, trust fund kiddies get hit by the real world all the time (see why so many businesses don't get passed down/survive generations, and also why those that get cut off often do high risk crimes and get slapped, or "slapped" for them, or become little more than gophers and maybe win some "can't hurt anybody" positions). Also nobody is extending a country club invitation to the lottery, big win in Vegas and insurance set.
The trust fund types might face a different problem to the dirt poor and going nowhere types but it rhymes in so many ways.
As far as the rich types not having a job then I guess you have not seen much of those either. The old money dislikes the nouveau riche, though often needs them because old money had too many kids that took the life of leisure path, or maybe just wants a bit more money to mingle in their
The trust fund types might face a different problem to the dirt poor and going nowhere types but it rhymes in so many ways.
Similar threads
