Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
[B]We have a huge problem with inner-city blacks that must be addressed. The dissagreement is in what the nature of the problem is, and therefore what to do about it. One side would prefer to coddle and support them, and thereby rather cynically earn their trust and therefore their votes. I say "cynically" because the rich fat cats understand deep down inside that they will never build a rapport; but that's o.k.; they still get the votes. I also believe these movers and shakers that provide lifelong welfare to these people could really care less if it helps them or not; again, it gets the votes.
The other side prefers the "tough love" approach. Wean them from the welfare teat; they CAN be productive and contributing members of society. They understand that generational listlessness and laziness is a very tough cycle to break. They understand that the other side paints them (rather successfully) as mean racists. They are willing to accept that, however, to restore the dignity and productivity of these people.
|
Jeff - this isn't really a fair comparison. Your starting point is:
a) liberals are vote sucking mongrels who buy votes with welfare
b) conservatives want what is right (even if it loses votes?).
This is not the case. The liberals believe in the benefits of welfare. I think it has a place - I abhor intergenerational dependency, but I've looked at the statistics which shows that total dependency on welfare is the exception, not the rule, for those on welfare.
It is an ideological difference between liberals and conservatives, and looking around the world I'm not sure I see an answer either way.
We definitely have the same type of demographic split as you do here - not included in "unemployment" are those people on:
- sickness benefits (can't work because of "debilatating" sickness/injury)
- solo mums getting the domestic purposes benefit
- etc (the etc is reasonably small)