Reiki,
You ask the question...
"Why should the government be actively involved in the promotion of the social welfare of the nation's citizens? In theory that could be for the benefit of a people that has been historically oppressed in a nation, but in my opinion it has created a system of government dependence, not just a system that ensures the social welfare of all people."
Well in a simple answer, consider "Reaganomics" in the 1980's. This is a prime example of what I am talking about as being the logical end with political conservatism. Reaganomics was possibly the greatest conservative experiment in contemporary times. He deregulated everything and allowed the "Market" to dictate the fortunes of our society. When this happens, the powerful move to acquire more power, at the expense of the powerless. Gaps in economic and political power widen, and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and its all justified by "The Market" with greed becoming a norm in our society (Think about it, Lifestyles of the rich and famous became popular, people like Donald trump and Leona Helmsly, Ted Turner, all come to promenance in the 80's).
Without Government protection (Not dependence) the inequalities in our society become greater and greater because power in our society rests in class status. Many conservatives talk about the growing roles of welfare queens and people getting fat off of welfare, but in the 1990's, welfare (as we categorize it) took up less than 1% of gov't spending. Contrary to popular belief, no one is geting rich off of welfare, except the Conservative corporate CEO's who benefit from tax shelters and cheap overseas labor, which costs our society alot more than AFDC could ever imagine. But that is another story though
.
Blackwatch!!!!!!
Dependence or protection?
Threaded Mode