Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Mostly wrong. His piece in 1965 had nothing about an evolving liberal view. In the 60's DPM believed that black men would never overcome the effects of the last century unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability. This would mean financial assistance and even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary.
You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published?
|
"unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability."
That's my point, and his. Making huge numbers of people so addicted to welfare that it robs them of initiative and the desire to stand on their own two feet, does more harm than good.
Democrats disagree with that, despite stupefying and tragic volumes of empirical evidence. So which side is racist, and why?
"even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary"
Now you sound like a Tea Party conservative. Conservatives want them to work. Liberals apparently want to rob them of their desire to work, and get them addicted to receiving welfare checks. I mean, I saw the Democrats at the SOTU sitting on their hands with scowls on their faces, when Trump announced historically low black unemployment. Why is that not worth celebrating? I cannot wait for your answer, I'm all a-twitter.
"You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published"
You have read his stuff, and you pretend that he didn't say the things he clearly said, which don't serve your agenda. I know a lot about DPM. I know it was a disaster that HRC took his seat, that was not a trade up.