Hey look! Dr. Cornell West! Professor Emeritus of Harvard and Princeton who was paid over $300,000 a year to ponder, write about and lecture about social welfare!
And look! He's doing his part and being an activist who complains about MONEY NOT GOING TOWARD SOCIAL WELFARE!
With a cardboard sign to boot. That's a nice touch.
Irony. :roll:
Is there anything more despicable than deriving power from convincing people they are victims of power? As a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America, I have to say it fits perfectly. So maybe irony is the wrong word.
But it's not a mentality. I see these terms bandied around, and I don't accept them. Millions of people are content to languish in poverty, rather than to create real wealth for themselves, where these supposed opportunities arise? That's nonsensical. This mythical ideal that one's potential for advancement is defined solely by one's attitude, flies in the face of both common sense and stark reality.
Were that the case, there shouldn't be 30 million people, starving in the Third World.
In itself an opportunity. Which in turn would furnish an individual from such a background with certain opportunites, denied the average working class individual. Such as financial assistance during college, would be another opportunity not so readily available to the guy from the ghetto.
Yes, in general parents who took opportunities are more likely to have children who do the same. It's a matter of example, after all.
Well, I'm not gonna say there's any clear cut line of demarcation, of course. But the stats likely attest to a certain pattern. In that light, we could draw any number of inferences, to the effect that atttiude is at least secondary to considerations of finance and prevailing ideology.
Of course. I'll never deny individual human potential. But where circumstances permit.
Theoretical opportunities, to be precise.
In the Conservative movement, such checks and balances are not so pressing as with Liberals, who operate within the realm of unchecked expansion, as a matter of course. With Cons, it might be overkill, since they represent restriction to begin with, and could stand to be more flexible. A more fitting objective would be oversight, and in general, for either movement. It's a subtle difference, but a relevant one.
Absolutely. But in the meantime, there are those for whom pecuniary reward may be relatively difficult to come by. There are also those incapable of employment. I won't argue this overly much, since I agree that many are simply unwilling. There's this recession to factor in. Job creation falls short of eligibility.
It's more an assessment of Conservatives and Liberals, as ideology applies broadly.
This is true. Poverty has multiple facets. It comes from within for some, and for others it's a learned behavior, which ultimately turns into a legacy. In the end, the Democrats will always have their finger on the pulse of the poverty mindset.