wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:02:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Toots Sweet" wrote in message
...
Democrats are for fair elections, helping the poor, assisting those in
need, the disenfranchised and minorities everywhere. Which is a good
thing.

At the same time, Democrats have been in charge of the major cities,
New York, New Orleans, Chicago, etc., for the past 50 years.

Think about that.

Think states, not cities and you'll see the light.

And what is wrong with thinking about cities? Do the majority of the
poor not live in large cities?
--

John H


Do you think they would live in the country with no services available?

I really think that is the biggest flaw in the "Great Society"
program. They piled all the welfare money up in the city where the
people were concentrated in ghettos instead of spreading it out across
the countryside and diluting the problem.
If you are trying to find jobs for a few marginally qualified people
per town it is easier than having them all in one area. The cost of
living is also lower out in the country if you are just sending them a
check.
Unfortunately with the collapse of the manufacturing base in this
country marginally skilled people are in serious trouble, no matter
where they live but that is another problem..



Pretty hard to offer services onezee twozee don't you think? Not very cost
effective or practical. The Great Society did a lot of good, but it wasn't
perfect.


--
Nom=de=Plume