[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's something I've noticed many times. Has anyone noticed the same thing or am I just seeing things.

When a conservative and liberal debate something, the conservative often points to the abstract effect something has on the entire population, while the liberal points to the effect that the policy might have on a specific person.

Here's an example:

In debating a minimum wage law, the conservative will say that having a minimum wage will encourage business owners to higher fewer numbers of entry level workers, therefore hurting a great number of people (i.e. it's better to have 100 people working at $5 per hour than 60 people at $7 per hour).

However, a liberal will look at the same issue and often say, what about the people that I KNOW that work for minimum wage. They need to be paid a higher wage to make ends meet. Liberals are often for a minimum wage because they can point to specific people that it will help, while they can never find someone that was not hired, but WOULD HAVE BEEN if not for the minimum wage law.

Minimum wage is just one example, but I've seen this type of thing very often. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt at neutrality.

-ptmusic