The function of democratic governments is to respond to the will of its populace.

Hmm... I've got the 2005 census figure right here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover.../hstpov22.html
It appears the 16 million number is right, but that hardly represents a 32-year high. The percent in severe poverty was 5.4 in 2005, same as it was in 2004, 1997, and 1996 and lower than it was in 1991-1994.

No wonder I've never heard of "McClatchy Newspapers."

You will. They own my local paper, and recently bought the Knight-Ridder chain. I think they're now the third-largest newspaper chain in the country.

__________________
Man up.

No, it is not.

And since that's never been done before... whoops!! Let the stupid taxpayers in this country keep paying for governments that fraudulently dispose of billions in welfare payments:


ROTFL. It means no such thing. Your assertion is utterly ridiculous. You can't even define inalienable rights or natural law. Please get your ignorance under control. Let's take a look at what some miraculously honest judges on the Supreme Court once said about our rights:

"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905)


Irrational. Huge gaps between the rich and the poor most notably occur in totalitarian regimes. The Soviet leaders lived like kings compared to the rest of the populace. There will also be inequality in the world, but to say it causes less productivity is foolish. There's absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. People are more productive with more freedom. If they have the opportunity to improve their lives, then others benefit due to the quality of work they produce. If your assertion were true, there would be no "rags to riches" stories, yet there are plenty of them in this country. People don't look at others and say "Wow, they have too much - I don't want any of that." They look at others and say, "I'd like to be in their position." And so they work for the opportunity to do that.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Sorry, forgot to post the link:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23910

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

It all seems to come down to taxes for you all!

Factis thanks to the stewardship of the GOP we will most probably HAVE to see a tax increase to get us out of debt and not pass it on to our kids and their kids.

As to poverty. LIfting people out of poverty is really quite simple. Lose the trickled on crap, ditch free trade and pass living wage laws.....a rise in pay on the lowest level has historically meant a domino effect in wages for other higher paid workers.

The last time we had a min wage increase about 2 years later I saw my take home pay increase by more then the wage increase as it was the only way they could hold onto me and my fellow employees as rages around the company increased.


Now befoer you all start with the usual talking points about tax and spend liberals remember that the last time we saw fiscl restraint and pay as you go was under a democrat....and the pay as you go plan is one supported by the current leadership. Also before you begin whingin about wage increases remember that for all the doom and gloom projetions from the right we have NEVER seen the catastophe that you all recycle everytime this comes up.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been holding many absurd notions out as truth for decades. It's time America woke up...
[/quote]



Hmmm looking at the liberterian absurd wish list I have to wonder if you see the irony of your statement? There is a reason that you all pretty much never get elected to national office...

[/quote]
I hope you don't think I'm a Libertarian. Those folks find my political slant anathema.
I am a Democratic Socialist.

I just love when newbies come to this site and revive dead horses (old arguments) that illustrate their limited knowledge of their own paradigm. One clue that should have raised a red flag is the posted link by Liberty, who used census bureau stats to disprove the premise of the original article. (oops! I guess you didn't read that one.) Here it is again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty brilliantly Hmm... I've got the 2005 census figure right here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover.../hstpov22.html It appears the 16 million number is right, but that hardly represents a 32-year high. The percent in severe poverty was 5.4 in 2005, same as it was in 2004, 1997, and 1996 and lower than it was in 1991-1994. No wonder I've never heard of "McClatchy Newspapers."

Another glaring example was raised by none other than apotropoxy in the title to his first response... there will always be poor people. Fact is, the poverty line is relative to the afluent in any given country. Most people who qualify for gubmit assistance in the United States fare much better than anyone in other countries. (No, that doesn't mean I think we should ignore the problem.)

Conservatives don't measure compassion for the poor in terms of how many tax dollars they can collect and redistribute to welfare recipients. Conservatives measure compassion for the poor in terms of how many poor and dependent people they can lift out of poverty. If it's done through means other than government programs or assistance, that's even better. (But it doesn't mean Conservatives want to eliminate them entirely.)

The evidence is all around us in the form of failed, or ineffective assistance programs. They only served to enable people to remain at the poverty level through incentives to stay and wallow in their misery, or resulted in outright fraud. That's enough to show me that Liberals haven't learned enough about solving the problem to claim any high moral ground in this issue. Taxing us, and throwing money at the problem without showing any results doesn't cut it in my world.

All one needs to do is to view the plight of the poverty stricken minorities in this country over the past 40 years to see how well Liberal-run programs fared. They might consider the high cost to society of their welfare-state utopian experiments. Aside from their not solving the problem and the exponential growth of poverty in their implementation, they were great.
You're basing your assertion on a false premise. U.S. census figures show you to be wrong. Dead wrong. Even with that aside, you should take a look around sometime. This present economy has out performed any in recent history.

If you claim to "fix" the unprecedented prosperity this country has enjoyed for the past 8 years, I wouldn't be hoping to gain power anytime soon. The whole erroneous Liberal claim of "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer" has been proven to be false countless times, yet you guys never seem to tire of trying to use it.

How's that workin' for ya?

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

There, there -- things aren't so bad. Today's kids are tomorrow's greedy, bloodsucking, trust fund, legacy, silver spoon, lucky-in-life, rich bastard corporate executives.