zappaisgod said:

[
I disagree. I think Dem politicians see it as a means to agglomerate power for themselves and don't give a fuck about the people they will screw to get it. A dependent class is their only validation. They don't want to teach you how to fish, they want to give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, until you have no idea how to get your own. Their "morality" is bankrupt and if you think they care about you you are an utterly irredeemable fool.

---

Quote:

They don't want to teach you how to fish, they want to give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, and give you fish, until you have no idea how to get your own. Their "morality" is bankrupt and if you think they care about you you are an utterly irredeemable fool.

---

A) that's a lot of fish.
B) you still rely on personal attacks to make your point.


C)The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

Quote:

Culturally was the wrong word i admit when referring Switzerland ive been there. Politically, perhaps ostensibly because low populations and decent economies don't let problems arise hence "real world". These countries don't work when you add more and more truely different people. Look at Denmarks reformed immigration policy,what happens when a new majority with different ideas emerges? Different situation in the US and larger countries.

---

Ah, Switzerland...they've got their problems for sure like every other country but I definitely see your point. When certain tolerant, democratic countries get flooded with immigrants there tends to be a reactionary right-wing movement as is happening right now in the Netherlands and to a large extent throughout Europe. Especially when these new citizens  are resistant to assimilating into the culture...

Switzerland has a very restrictive immigration policies even to the point of outright xenophobia but they have managed to maintain a prosperous, thriving nation for centuries. Getting Swiss citizenship is a real pain in the ass

But anyway, I think that the US is just as "real world" as European democracies and we can even learn a thing or two from them. Do you think perhaps that countries with the size and diversity of the US don't lend themselves as easily to be administered more democratically?