'exhuming forfeited arguments when they involve matters of “public concern” would present practical difficulties. For one thing, identifying cases of a “public concern” and “non-public concern” –- divorced from any other consideration –- is a tricky task governed by no objective standards..... For another thing, if an issue is of public concern, that concern is likely more reason to avoid deciding it from a less-than-fully litigated record....'"
If I am reading this correctly, Would this not mean that the federal government no longer has standing to hide behind "national security" when it comes to denying freedoms or bringing people to court without a warrant?
Long story short, supply and demand work. If someone wants to pay me XX for something that costs me XX/10 no one should have a problem with that.
In their view social programs are bad for poor people, as poor people deserve to be poor
I dont think it works quite that way
Lets look at it like this. I cant tell you how many friends I have who lost their jobs over the past few years, myself included. Some of them sat on unemployement for the entire time they could collecting their 400 bucks a week, as soon as the check ran out, they all manage to get a job the next week. Kind of fishy dont you think?
If the government is giving people enough to get by, they lose the motivation to better themselves and get stuck in a rut.
Im in no way saying remove the security blanket, simply we need to find a way to teach people to fish again, instead of just giving them bread
You can take that to mean what you wish. but the facts are simple, inner cities are a problem.