[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, because spending money like we do in CT, has helped these people?
I've asked before - we just had 8 years of a Dem gov. and 8 prior of Repub govern. - whose budget went up a higher %? and what did the Repub (who got arrested for being a crook) do in terms of the emp. benefits/pensions?
Spending more money is only beneficial, if it's spent on things that actually help people. like food stamps? Making more of them choose single parenthood, hasn't been an overly productive use of public money from their perspective. Crippling them, by making them addicted to welfare,I guess you thing all people on any assistance are addicted to welfare - does that include the mentally/physically challenged? I know Rep. separate people into 2 group - makers and takers. Are those the takers? hasn't been an overly productive use of money. Getting more of them to be self sufficient, giving them skills (not cash) they can use to get ahead, makes sense to me. I'll help pay for it. I'll happily pay for free day care so teenage parents can learn a trade or go back to school. I'm less thrilled about sending them cash for the rest of their lives so they can sit around.

"The poor (of which minorites have a bigger % poor) live in the inner cities bc they are closer to social services and buses, etc"

And because they don't have the skills they need to acquire the wealth necessary to live in a suburb.

If huge numbers of poor people got off welfare and became self sufficient, they'd be less likely to vote democrat. You're telling me, that doesn't factor into democrat policy? That democrats don't have a self serving reason to keep them poor?I don't think so.

Democrats offer more freebies to poor people than republicans, I would never deny that. I see it as a good thing for the GOP.

Your last statement confirms what I think a lot of Rep. feel - that social services are just freebies. I view the Dems. policies as a good thing and why I very infrequently vote Rep any more.