On one hand, ending welfare or even going Yang's route by awarding a lump sum may eliminate the dependency and incentive to stay within the poverty line.

Reap what you sow

Some communities just have different standards for how low they’re willing to go

On the other, I expect the children would suffer immensely based on the poor spending habits and decisions of the parents.

Or maybe a cap at how high they go

Having a "minimum welfare" is achieved with capitalism

Reducing scarcity is the only way it is fixed

Any1 saying otherwise is a welfare cuck that needs real life to smack em in the face

The problem is that awarding welfare based on a certain income creates an environment in which families actively discourage their kids from achievement to preserve that steady rate of income.

Given that black income was almost equivalent to whites before welfare

Kind of proves my pt

And dont give me BS about "it only affected blacks" when welfare was explicitly targeted towards blacks

As per the campaign agendas of the time

Because Democrats were viewed as racist, and so they wanted the black vote

https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/591210992998809612.png?v=1

I have a dog on my shirt

But these people are under the poverty line for a reason. Giving them full liberty to spend their stipend without restriction would be disastrous.

Simply funneling money to the impoverished doesn't fix poverty.

```These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.
-Lyndon B Johnson```

BLOOMBERG SURGE!!!!!!

<:powerful:595334910764515338> <:powerful:595334910764515338> <:powerful:595334910764515338>

litterallywho

tbh

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/331196252949577740/678980502102736923/bbbb.JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRs2-_FvNcQ

He's right. There is a Bloomberg surge. His numbers have doubled in the past month.

Tfw most the chat know less about american presidents than sargon.

At present, Bloomberg should overtake Biden *just before* Super Tuesday hits.

He'll get backlash

Biden isn’t the one the beat

It'll go back down

It’s Bernie the king

Bernie's gonna get cucked by the DNC

again

I'm voting for Jeb. <:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

He has grown too powerful

they're gonna pick Hillary or Bloomberg

i m voting brk osama

because the DNC (even though many of it's supporters are MASSIVE leftists) is lead by a bunch of fucking NeoLibs

None of this matters that much at the moment. Super Tuesday will decide the top 2 Dem candidates - both due to the massive number of state delegate counts and the DNC's dirty trick of SuperDelegates awarding votes to the candidate of their choice.

TLDR - Check the Polls March 2 and March 4. You'll see a pretty massive difference.