The State of Illinois is headed towards bankruptcy. Why is it Democrats never care?
|
It's the opposite, the Democrats are the only ones who care. And here's why I can say that. If you pull up on the internet the 10 or so states most precariously on the edge of bankruptcy you'll see they are all the old US history book states. And by that I mean they're the big city states with world class famous cities which have been beacons for immigrants and emigrants for two centuries. They're constantly overextended because they're constantly swarmed by the human locusts, not just coming from other countries but also coming from the farmlands and more rural areas spread across the US. They get there to that big melting pot and the modern Democrats (because I'll admit the weren't always this way) essentially try to embrace them all and keep the ship afloat for them. Meanwhile, the more rural conservatives just take shots at those cities as dens of depravity and drains on resources. Admit it, the Republicans don't give two rats @sses what happens to Chicago. Show me where they've demonstrated they do? It's easy to sit back in Topeka or Peoria or Cheyenne where the majority of your population is homogenous and shake your finger at NYC or LA or Chicago. Because typically you haven't had two centuries of heavy influx. 1
point
1
point
I think both you and the original poster are mischaracterizing the other side. My observation is that the vast majority of people all across the American political spectrum are people of good will who want health, happiness, and prosperity for all people. I think people on both sides mistake disagreement about methods as lack of real concern. That is unfair to both Democrats and Republicans. The general Democrat tactic for helping poor people is to set up some program that gives them something they need. The goal is to ensure immediate needs are met. The idea is that government provision of physical necessities is the only way to guarantee people’s survival. The general Republican tactic for helping poor people is to try to cultivate an environment that encourages investment and innovation, and thereby creates jobs and opportunities. The goal is to encourage individuals to figure things out, and find solutions for themselves. The idea is to get the poor to prosper as self-sufficient adults who have the dignity of work and accomplishment in addition to food and shelter. Think of it as the difference between giving a person a fish (Democrats) and teaching him/her how to fish (Republicans). You did not address the most severe financial problem for Detroit, Chicago, the state of Illinois, the US, and a host of other governmental bodies. Unfortunately, both sides have colluded in the creation and continuance of government pension systems (Social Security and government employee pension programs at all levels of government) that are plainly mathematically unsustainable, especially considering the extension of life spans and the decreased birth rate starting in the 60's. Most of these retirement systems are nothing more than taxpayer-funded Ponzi schemes. Neither political party is willing to bite the bullet and stop these programs now. Instead they are being UNINTENTIONALLY cruel by letting the financial gangrene spread instead of performing a clean amputation. That is not because they do not care, but because they are too cowardly to cause necessary pain. Although I don't agree with everything you wrote there was plenty in there to set me to thinking. Thank you. I will try to stop generalizing and mischaracterizing. It's easy to get carried away on debate websites. But by the way, the fish or fisherman analogy isn't that simple. Many people helped by safety net programs can't simply learn to fish (children, the aged, the disabled, sometimes veterans, the mentally ill, etc.). Also sometimes its the funds for teaching them how to fish which get cut. It's just not as simple as that analogy. And back to Chicago. Actually I agree. Both sides did contribute to the mess that is Chicago. Plus the people of Chicago also have a hand in their fate yet clearly a sizeable subpopulation is content to keep messing it up. 1
point
Personally, I think most public assistance programs treat the poor like children. Despite the good intentions of the Democrats, non-emergency welfare programs steadily atrophy initiative and innovation, and encourage cycles of dependence. Overall, it looks like long term/continued dependence on the welfare state infantilizes those who are on public assistance, and promotes inter-generational poverty, and contributes to the breakdown of the family, and the crime and violence that result. Thomas Sowell briefly discusses these and other effects of the welfare state. (https://www.youtube.com/ I do not think that any of these things are because the Democrats do not care. They are simply results of good intentions unfettered by an understanding of economics. The Brookings Institute completed a study that showed that poor teens only need to do three things to avoid being permanently poor, and ultimately join the middle class: 1-Graduate High School 2-Get a job 3-Wait until they are married before having children (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ Unfortunately, social welfare programs decrease the criticality of numbers 2 & 3 as a matter of avoiding destitution. The socialist safety net actually mitigates the incentive to get a job and wait to have children until one is able to support them. |
