Poverty in America

[EPW]

There is obviously a conspiracy amongst the rich to make the poor poorer.

[MrFun]

WHAT"S YOUR POINT.

My point is that Loinburger is worse than Hitler.

[rah]

NOW THAT WOULD BE ALMOST WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.

[OzzyKP]

My point is that Loinburger is worse than Hitler.

[SlowwHand]

Not sure why someone in Associated Press bothered with this story, then.

I think that's the point of your opposition.

[David Floyd]

Surefire method to cure 90% of poverty in America:

Step 1)End all social assistance programs, such as food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc.

Step 2)Nothing. This is a one step program.

You see, what will happen is that those who can't fend for themselves or get friends or family to help them will just die off. This solves the short term and long term problem, in that the current people who are living in poverty will die, and from a long term perspective, they won't breed. Since poor people have more kids, poverty tends to breed poverty, then the simple matter of poor people being too dead to breed will reduce future poverty. Some people currently living in poverty will choose (ooh, that's an ugly word for bleeding heart liberals) to better themselves, thus solving their own problem without dying.

Looks like David Floyd wins again.

[Lorizael]

Surefire method to cure 90% of poverty in America:

Step 1)End all social assistance programs, such as food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc.

Step 2)Nothing. This is a one step program.

You see, what will happen is that those who can't fend for themselves or get friends or family to help them will just die off. This solves the short term and long term problem, in that the current people who are living in poverty will die, and from a long term perspective, they won't breed. Since poor people have more kids, poverty tends to breed poverty, then the simple matter of poor people being too dead to breed will reduce future poverty. Some people currently living in poverty will choose (ooh, that's an ugly word for bleeding heart liberals) to better themselves, thus solving their own problem without dying.

Looks like David Floyd wins again.

Yeah. See. The problem with this is that ability to generate wealth != social utility.

[David Floyd]

Only a liberal would claim that generating wealth doesn't equate to social utility.

[Space05us]

Surefire method to cure 90% of poverty in America:

Step 1)End all social assistance programs, such as food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc.

Step 2)Nothing. This is a one step program.

You see, what will happen is that those who can't fend for themselves or get friends or family to help them will just die off. This solves the short term and long term problem, in that the current people who are living in poverty will die, and from a long term perspective, they won't breed. Since poor people have more kids, poverty tends to breed poverty, then the simple matter of poor people being too dead to breed will reduce future poverty. Some people currently living in poverty will choose (ooh, that's an ugly word for bleeding heart liberals) to better themselves, thus solving their own problem without dying.

Looks like David Floyd wins again.

Or they could choose to kill you and your family for that toasty loaf of bread they need to survive.

[David Floyd]

Yep, that's why we have laws against murder and laws that allow me to shoot someone in self defense.

If the cops, common citizens, and even the Army have to start shooting poor people who turn to a life of violent crime, that just accelerates the process of eliminating poverty.

However, a second solution just struck me. We could simply redefine poverty as something akin to conditions in an African refugee camp. That would drastically reduce the number of people we would have to kill off, and if we put them all in "refugee camps", it would make killing them off just that much easier. Hmmm, that would also address your concern of them killing me for bread. Razor wire and machine gun nests should be an effective barrier to that

[David Floyd]

Also, with all the tax money I'd be saving if we eliminated social programs, I wouldn't be eating a toasty loaf of bread - nope, it'd be sushi and filet mignon every night, and I'd be rich enough to order double portions to make sure I had enough, then throw away the rest.

My solution keeps providing side benefits I didn't even think of at first. My initial concern was the same as yours - how to eradicate poverty. I hardly noticed, at first, that my solution provided so many more personal benefits.

That's what I like about being right. I'm usually so right, my win is even bigger than it seems

[DaShi]

Can't we just kill rich people instead? We'd need to kill less and it would help a lot more.

[Space05us]

David, go read a history book. You don't need to get far to see that poor people starving is never a good thing.

[David Floyd]

True, but I thought the point was to eradicate poverty? If you kill the rich, then eventually everyone will be poor. The rich are rich for a reason - they found a way to succeed. If we kill all the successful people, then we will simply create a nation full of people who fail at everything except, apparently, failure itself.

[David Floyd]

Of course poor people starving has been historically bad. Hell, it caused the French Revolution. But if the French monarchy had access to machine guns, mustard gas, and claymores, they would have put those uppity poor people in their place.