richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
The Dems must be rubbing their hands with glee. 50 million people dependant on Government money (I say Government money, I just mean other people's money... and by that, I mean, other people's money in the future)
|
To reduce thoughts of something that is meant to help people to some sort of excuse to engage in the worst possible political partisan insanity there is. You want to spin it the other way? Well, how about you go, "The GOP CAN'T wait to see 50 million people end up where they qualify for food stamps, so they can slash the spending and get them thrown out on the street, where they can die of starvation and cull the herd. This way, only the worthy survive."
Do you SERIOUSLY think either party is sitting in some sort of circle twirling the moustaches and cackling evil, think how they can actually go out of they way to ruin yourself? Do you REALLY think this? Do you?
Watch the original videos and then see what you think on this.
|
No, I don't think it is the intention, but I do think there will be Dems that see this as a positive going into the next election. I mean, look at Detroit... that is one of the most reliant cities in the country for Government money, and it's also a fairly safe Democrat city.
It's the same thing here, in the UK, the areas most reliant on Government money - inner-cities, Scotland/Wales, many parts of Northern England are the ones that tend to vote Labour, and the areas least reliant on the Government are likely to vote Conservative.
At the end of the day, if you're on any kind of welfare... who are you going to vote for? The guys who want to protect/expand it, or the guys wanting reduce/remove it? There WILL be people within the inner-coffers of the Democrat party who see this as a good thing.
---
Also, your example was very different to what I said. I said that Democrats would see this as a positive thing, as it aids them politically... you basically made out that Republicans want to kill poor people for the sake of it.
|
What I said, would be to do what you did with Democratic view of the electorate and society, and spin it on the GOP side. In both cases, it is a negative spin on the matter. Both are oversimplified and cynical view of things.
Only thing I can conclude based on what you said, and to be fair, is to end up say that if times are tough, and people feel their well being is threatened by the economy, they will be more likely to vote the party that supports the social safety net, which would be Democratic. Well, unless the GOP can somehow persuade that they are better for the future. After 8 years of the Bush administration, that would be seen as suspect, considering all the talk floating about on the GOP side. But, then again, some people are against voting their interests.
|
You seem to be talking to me as if I'm a Republican, I'm not.
The thing that I find interesting, though, is that the places that become reliant on public money never seem to be able to grow beyond the need to that "safety net", afterwards. This, in itself, seems to disprove Keynsian economics as it clearly shows that increased Government spending does not lead to increased prosperity.
Again, I'll use the same two examples - first, Detroit - that place has been running on welfare for decades, now, and doesn't seem to have improved very much. Indeed, the higher taxes and powerful unions seem to have driven industry out of the city, and things became a lot worse.
And, then, there's North England/Scotland/Wales... before the 08 recession, the UK had its longest period of peace time growth in its history - and yet these areas of the country seemed to become even more reliant on public money? How is that possible? And, indeed, during the recession it was these areas that were hit hardest, despite public safety nets. These are also the parts of the country where inflation is more crippling (inflation being a product of deficit spending), as they have lower incomes... AND it's the places that are going to be hit worse, with the Government spending cuts.
Certainly in the UK, it seems your much better off if you don't rely on Government for driving the economy. And, the UK has been doing this socialism thing than a lot longer than you guys... you'd think we'd be good at it, by now.
