Whatever side of the gay marriage issue you’re on, it’s clear that one of prime movers of public opinion has been more and more people discovering that they know, are related to, work with, belong to groups with, etc. gay and lesbian people.
I’m just wondering if the same tug will be felt in the economic debate. In the past, it’s been easy for some of us to think of people who face bankruptcy or loose their homes to over-borrowing as “the great unwashed” — as Dickens might have described them, "the undeserving." You know, “They made their beds, now let them lay in them.”
Most of us can remember how effectively Ronald Regan used the image of the welfare queen, having babies just to get her hands on more government cash. And, of course, I could easily sail along not knowing anyone on welfare. Or at least I didn’t think I knew anyone.
But yesterday I found out some of my good friends, really good, highly responsible folks, will probably loose their home. And as hard as it was for them to tell me about it, I’m guessing I know quite a few others facing the same situation who aren’t sharing that news.
And honesty insists I share the fact that our family faced that situation and were fortunate to narrowly avoid it at one point in our lives.
When many of us found out we knew homosexuals, it changed things. Will it change any attitudes when we begin to realize that all of us know someone badly injured in the current downturn? I hope so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well but you see the difference with like the bankruptcy thing you mentioned, is that companies, are existing to serve us as the consumers. If they no longer can do that, or if we don't wish to receive any of their problems then they either need to reform and innovate, or step out of the way of future innovators and other ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, my opinion would not change if i had a company that had to go out of business, or if i knew some one whos had. The problem with these bailouts is that it prevents new innovative ideas from being made. by keeping GM on life support, instead of realizing that people just don't want to buy their cars anymore, by not letting them compete and create new models, by keeping them around and making people buy things they don't want, you are taking away the chance for many other companies or places to do the same.
Also i think the bailouts can for lack of a better word 'help' with the welfare thing. poor people see the banks with no money, then they look at Obama giving out money to the banks and it appears that they are better now, because Obama just gave them money. So they look at that and think, "hey he helped the banks when they were in trouble, now he'll help us." And that is the mentality.
ReplyDeleteAn argument could also be made that by keeping people on welfare you are distracting them with money, to get votes and obtain power. Sort of the 'carrot on the end of the string for the rabbit' idea. People then become dependent on the government.
So then they think it is good when really it is just keeping them poor and on the dole. So the dems paint that image in their heads, and then when people say "no give them a chance, let them get off the dole and try and do something," which would mean taking away their check, they view it as "against the poor" when really it is simply against the government breeding future voters (kids on welfare) and...yeah, i think by now you understand my point.