Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cpsc53.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!whuxcc!lcuxlm!akgua!akguf!akguc!cpsc53!rt
From: rt@cpsc53.UUCP (Ron Thompson)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Poor People
Message-ID: <100220@cpsc53.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Sep-86 22:05:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: cpsc53.100220
Posted: Mon Sep 15 22:05:52 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Sep-86 10:24:09 EDT
References: <343@ge-dab.UUCP> <1937@udenva.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS CPSC, Atlanta, GA
Lines: 25

> >I'm not a libertarian, but it seems they have the right
> >idea.  If we spend less on poor people, then we will 
> >have less poor people.
> >
>   And if we napalm poor neighborhoods, we'll have even fewer.  And if we
> make the death sentence mandatory for minor offenses, we'll have fewer
> criminals.  And if we drown minority babies at birth, there'll be less
> racial disharmony.
> 
Interesting how two people can read the same words and interpret them
so differently.  I took the first paragraph to mean that the less attractive
we make it to be poor, the more incentive there will be to be something
other than poor.  Actually the only people that should be on the list for
handouts are the mentally incompetent and the severely physically disabled.
I see too many jobs open at minimum wages and above to believe otherwise.
The first category I interpret to include people that have more children
than they can afford to feed because they don't qualify for wages that
will.  I can't see justifying the punishment of children that have no control
over the situation, but at the same time, I can't justify having others pay
for the material possessions of those that don't have the responsibility to
earn it themselves.
-- 
  Ron Thompson		AT&T Information Systems	Customer Programming  
  (404) 982-4217        Atlanta, Georgia		Services Center	      
  ..{ihnp4,akgua}!cpsc53!rt               (Opinions expressed are mine alone.)