95db2352   
   XPost: alt.activism, alt.politics.republican, alt.politics.conservative   
   From: tim.howard@suddenlink.net   
      
   On 3/22/2011 3:31 PM, Stan de SD wrote:   
   > On Mar 21, 10:38 pm, Tim Howard  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> So what is your solution for the poor, who you call "lowlifes" that   
   >>>> cannot afford housing and medical care on their own?   
   >   
   > My solutions is that they put a bit more effort into their own   
   > education and self-improvement so they can improve their earnings   
   > potential. Other things, such as not having children you can't afford   
   > to take care, would also improve their situation...   
   >   
   People should do that, but you and Ray miss the point.  There is only so   
   much wealth; economists can estimate with at least fair accuracy how   
   much our economy will grow next year.  We know that trillions of $$$ are   
   not going to be suddenly added to the economy under any  circumstances.   
     A small % of the people control the wealth--how it is produced, spent,   
   distributed, moved around, etc.  They control the financial process.   
   There is no "invisible hand".  Economists can predict trends and tell us   
   who money will be made.  Some people can move up into a higher economic   
   class or even get rich over time by doing what you suggest, but most   
   will not no matter how hard they try.  Those that control the financial   
   system don't want too many people invited to the party.   
      
   >>> Very simple.  For one, restrict HUD residents to lower income housing   
   >>> and not the suburbs.   
   >>   
   >> How is that kind of economic discrimination any different than a racist   
   >> policy that says all blacks must be confined to certain places, and not   
   >> live next to whites?   
   >   
   > You're either too stupid or stubborn to get it - which one is it?   
   >   
   I'm kinda stubborn. ;p   
      
   > There's a HUGE difference between someone who CAN afford the rent/   
   > mortgage to move into a given location, but being prohibited from   
   > doing so, vs. not being able to live somewhere because you can't   
   > afford the price of entry. Maybe I can complain of "economic   
   > discrimination" because I can't afford to live in Beverly Hills or   
   > Grosse Point, MI or on the Upper West Side in Manhattan?   
   >   
   There's a HUGE difference between someone in poverty wanting to at least   
   be in the lower-middle class than an upper middle-class person desiring   
   to be among the super rich.   
   >   
   >> Secondly, if you need public assistance, you>  should be fixed so you   
   cannot have more children.  It makes no sense for   
   >>> working people to limit their family to two children while lowlifes are   
   >>> having eight.  Thirdly, all people on public assistance should be   
   >>> required to take drug screenings just like working people. If you fail   
   >>> the drug test (much like a job) you lose your benefits.   
   >>   
   >> You have a very hateful attitude toward the poor.   
   >   
   > How is holding people up to standards "hateful"?   
   >   
   > (rest of idiotic liberal nonsense snipped for brevity...)   
      
   You snipped my suggestion that the rich CEOs who get corporate welfare,   
   or all the big corporations who contract with the government (like   
   "defense" contractors) should be drug tested first if we are to go after   
   the poor.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)