Why the Left's obsession with equality of outcomes is not helping the poor.
Welcome to Friends Of Liberty Archives We hope you enjoy our Posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Starbucks + Race + Hypocrisy
Starbucks newest "rant" is nothing short of sheer, flaming, blatant hypocrisy. But then, that is what the left excels at. It takes a politically correct stance, but underneath, there is always a hidden agenda. Is this move designed to draw more attention to make the entire issue of race much larger than it really is?
Yes, prejudice does exist on many issues in our society, However, will forcing a discussion on ANY topic upon one's customers who are waiting for their morning coffee bear fruit?
As the article below suggests, how about creating some economic opportunities in the areas and neighborhoods that need them the most.
We need less talk and more action, not only on the issue of race, but on many other problems created by the cultural divide pushed by those who seek to turn us against each other so as to gain total control for their own benefit.
Why Aren't There Starbucks in These Majority Black Cities?
I’m not a coffee drinker. In fact, I’ve only had one cup of coffee in my entire life. I was about ten years old. It was at my grandparents’ house during a family get together. There was a cup of coffee on the table. I picked it up and took a gulp. Big mistake. Somebody had put a cigarette out in it. I can still taste it.
My wife knows that if she wants to keep ice cream in the house she needs to buy coffee ice cream.
Even so, I know about Starbucks. They are everywhere . . . except it seems in many majority black cities and neighborhoods.
You are surely aware of the “Race Together” campaign sponsored by Starbucks. When I first heard it I wondered how it was going to work if people who were buying their overpriced caffeine fixes really wanted to talk about race. I’m sure the people standing in line and at the drive through would love to listen in on a 30-minute discussion as they're checking their new Apple watches for the time. Sure they would.
It's like people who ask how you're doing. Do they really want to know? Not really.
Kareem Abdul Jabbar had this to say on the subject, but as we’ll see there’s the “rest of the story” that the mainstream media are not reporting:
“Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s bold decision to encourage his baristas to discuss race relations with willing customers has filled me with shock and awe. I’m in awe of his courageous and good-hearted attempt to do something to bring about better awareness of racism. I’m in awe that he’s willing to put morality above profits. I’m in awe that he’s willing to endure the snarky ridicule and lame coffee jokes from pundits as well as the inevitable death threats from clueless trolls. All with nothing personally or corporately to gain — and a lot to lose.”
Talk is cheap. It’s actions that matter, what a person does based on what he says, otherwise he’s a hypocrite.
Writing "Race Together" on coffee cups may have had good intentions, but it won't fix a thing.
Read more: "Why Charity Can be a Bad Thing."
If Starbucks is really serious about Racing Together, the company might think about building some Starbuck Coffee Houses in majority black neighborhoods.
Jen Kuznicki at CNSNews writes:
“If Starbucks wants us to talk about race, let’s start with why they don’t have Starbucks Coffee Houses in some of America’s cities that are mostly black, or have had a racially charged history?
“My friend looked up various cities, and found that there are no Starbucks Coffee Houses in many of them.
“Places like Highland Park, Michigan, which is at the center of Detroit, is inhabited by a population that is 94 percent African-American. Or in Benton Harbor, Michigan, which is almost 90 percent African-American. There is not a Starbucks in either town.
“There is not a Starbucks in East St. Louis, Illinois, in which 98 percent of the population is African-American. Nor is there one in Gary, Indiana, whose population is 85 percent African-American.
“The recent remembrance of the march on Selma, Alabama had the president walking down the street with many people who fought for civil rights, but once again, Selma doesn’t have a Starbucks. Neither does Ferguson, Missouri.”
If Starbucks really wants to help blacks, then the company needs to set up shop in these cities and institute training programs for blacks teaching job skills and how to run a business.
Howard Schultz might want to take a look at what venture capitalist Catherine Hoke, founder and CEO of Defy Ventures, is doing. Defy Ventures “teaches ex-prisoners how to start a business—then incubates and finances those businesses.” She explains how Defy Ventures helps participants in the program become successful:
“Fifty percent of our effort is in soft skills, transformational training and personal development. We’re not just making entrepreneurs but also great, committed parents, employees and community leaders. We have 10 hours of training taught by an Emily Post Institute-certified instructor, everything from how to shake a hand to how to tie a tie to a two-hour formal dining course and how to properly write a thank-you note after a job interview.”1
Starbucks has billions of dollars in profits. Surely the company could do something like this. If Defy Ventures can do great things with ex-convicts, surely Starbucks can do the same with non-criminals.
Talk is cheap.
Government Pays $60,000 per Poor Family to Keep them Voting for Liberals
How is it possible that $60,000 is spent on each welfare family and yet Liberals are crying for even more money? The total payments amount to $1 trillion. There’s a layer of bureaucracy that exists between the $1 trillion dollars and the welfare recipients:
“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795. . . . If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.”
“This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. ‘If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350. . . .”
The amount spent keeps increasing, and we keep getting more poverty-stricken families. You get more of what you subsidize. This is exactly the results Liberals were planning on – an increased dependent class of voters that will keep them in office.
The goal has never been to decrease the number of poor families.
Once a welfare program is made law, there are always people who take advantage of it. Consider what’s happening with disability claims.
The number of American workers collecting federal disability insurance benefits hit yet another record high in October, according to the Social Security Administration.
This month 8,803,335 disabled workers are collecting benefits, up from the previous record of 8,786,049 set in September.
This is an increase of 1,334,095 since Obama took office. That works out to a net increase of about 29,646 per month (1,334,095 divided by 45 months), or an average increase of about 975 per day (1,334,095 divided by 1,369 days).
The continued increase of disability claims isn’t only an Obama phenomenon. There has been a steady increase in claims ever sense the program was instituted. People are taking advantage of the system because they can.
Why would any appreciable percentage of these people ever vote for a political candidate that wants to cut the budget and shrink the welfare state? Once their self-interest kicks in, they will vote for the guy or gal who promises to keep the checks coming.
The way to decrease disability claims and welfare is to free-up the economy. Can you imagine what would happen if the $1 trillion dollars spent on welfare were left in the pockets of tax payers? They would spend more, save more, and invest more. The economy would boom. The truly needy could be taken care by voluntary organizations.
The goal should be to wean the impoverished off the teat of the welfare state.
by Filed Under Economy, Politics, Poverty, Welfare
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)