__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Pretty much everyone agrees the poverty line is arbitrary. Some claim it's too low, some too high. Others think it's a bit of both and just so lacking in detail to have any meaning whatsoever.

For all but the latter, it has the same importance as polls.
At any given moment it means nothing.
But the trends over time are important for noting changes in the well-being of Americans, especially toward the bottom.
If more people fall under it than usual, it's most likely a bad sign... even if we're not sure how many are really poor.

It's no less ridiculous than the way the government figures unemployment (a totally useless figure).

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Poor people or people on welfare?

Find another use for all the poor people and rich people will have to flip burgers, sweep their floors, and mow their own lawn!

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Welfare, can't we grind them up and use them as biofuel or something?

__________________
Manu Chao - Bongo Bong

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." - Oscar Wilde

"Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise." - Sir Francis Bacon

or mix them in with concrete to reduce the costs for buildings? oow or make tires out of them!

Here in the UK we have a large and extensive 'welfare state system' its been around since shortly after WWII.

The level of benifits granted are such that we have a significant percentage of the population in a 'dependency trap' where it is more worth their while to stay on State benifits rather than take a low paid job.

It is hard to estimate what percentage of the population this is. But as a guide we have 6.7% of the working population on incapacity benifits - where for one reason or another they are considered unfit to work?!?!?!? ( a doctor's note can put you into this catagory )
That doesn't incude the 'unemployed' figure of 5.2% of working population. Giving 12% - so the 'benifit dependency trap' must include a chunk of that 12%.

Britain enjoyed 100% full employment upto the early 1970's.

We now have many 100,000's of EU population like Poles and CZ folk that are here to fill the jobs that are certainly available - but the UK 'benifit dependent' population refuse to take. yet the Poles and CZ etc doing these jobs are doing it volunteerary and are not starving as people were back in the 1930s before the dawn of the State benifits system.

So in short we have set our levels in the UK to a high enough standard that the definition of our state benifits :

. a guarantee of minimum standards, including a minimum income; ---- the poverty line

. social protection in the event of insecurity;

. the provision of services at the best level possible.


Are set so that humans, that are capable of working refuse to do so.

This is clearly wrong as it robs people of the natural instinct to work and be productive. It is also wrong for the Country economics and wrong for the people that do work and pay taxes to fund this current situation.


In short I do accpet the need for a Wealfare State Benifit system - as there are certainly some people that do need it. But I question the amount of State benifits - I question the level of benifits on offer.

I believe it is virtually a sin not work when there are jobs to be done and any human created systems and arbitory levels that corrupts that is immoral.

If you're on welfare and unemployed looking for work you are counted.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

This was mostly because of war and public works projects. Such a market does not come about naturally...
And we can assume the employment figure did not include people who were incapacitated by the definition of the time.

It's the definition of "incapacitated" that is problematic... or at least the loopholes involved in that definition.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

100% employment is a very loose term as far as economists go. Understand that full employment in many circumstances only means that all those who are willing and able to work are employed.

__________________

doubt anyone not on the dole would agree that a system which rewards sloth is desirable; however, what i find more immoral is condemning a system that proves a meager subsistence for those children who, through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves




*corrected

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]