Yes, zero percent official poverty.

That's simple then; let's just redefine "official poverty." We'll say anyone making less than $0/year is "officially poor." Problem solved, and we could enjoy the fruits of no revolution and no crime which you promise.

So, once official poverty reaches zero, poverty will no longer be a "mountain" of a problem, simply a "molehill" of a problem? Why would it be a "molehill" of a problem when it doesn't actually exist as a problem? Are only non-existent problems "molehill" problems, while any existent problems are "mountain" problems? If so, wouldn't that make any existent problem which our politicians are concerned with "mountain" problems, and therefore deserving of consideration?

Could you eloberate on this one a bit further please. What do you mean, especially compared to which European countries?

Sorry for taking this thread away from the original issue, but i'm just curious about hearing that aspect of Cato's statement.

__________________
"bellum omnium contra omnes; atque in eo bello jus esse omnibus in omnia."
Thomas Hobbes

"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

From a purely, full faith and credit of official weights and measures perspective, I agree with your line of reasoning. That is why I only claim that it would be more ethical and moral to have an official public policy of zero percent poverty, than to not have one.

1. Giving the hyper wastefull lifestyle we are living, everyone is/should be able to find enough(still-eatable ) food to continue to exist and not to be starving. Whether that kind of "basic" food supply is desireable to have in rich society is a totaly different question, but you haven't asked for that to be answered.

2. It all depends on, what you mean by shelter; I'm all for homeless people having a right to live on public land and floking their tent, barrack whatever there(hell aren't they are part of the public?), but that doesn't mean spending money on public housing.

3. Again a question of how you define medical care. Is it all about helping those in danger towards their life or is it about a general public health care system? This one is a difficult one, as the current US-system seems to be hyperexpansive and is not working that fine, no matter whether it's only there for those who pay or not.

4. Can't say much about this one; are there fees for normal public schools in the USA? I haven't heard about it, so at least some sort of basic education is ensured in contrast to e.g. China, an offical "communist" () country.

__________________
"bellum omnium contra omnes; atque in eo bello jus esse omnibus in omnia."
Thomas Hobbes

"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

Here are a couple links for you, Stapo.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
The Poor May Not Be Getting Richer: But they are living longer, eating better, and learning to read - Reason Magazine

What do you think of at-will employment doctrine and at-will employment laws in states that have those laws?

I think better adherence to those laws and doctrine could provide market based metrics for public policy that can ensure zero percent official poverty in the US. The underlying assumption is that, in any mixed-market economy, poverty can be the result of a simple lack of income. By providing access to an income that is above the poverty rate, anyone can be above the poverty rate from an unemployment income that is as easy for a public sector to administer as a minimum wage.

I do not understand why there is not a government health care system that provides cheap, reliable health care to those who cannot afford to purchase health care from private organizations. No free health care, but cheap (price, not quality) health care and treatment. Those who wish to purchase health care from private organizations are free to do so, and those who are not able to purchase from private organizations will not go without. The issue probably isn't as simple as that... or is it?

Taking legally earned property from one person and giving it to someone else does not meet these ideals, and I do not wish to live in a country that takes from me in order to provide for another. I work to provide myself with food, shelter, healthcare, and education, and there is no reason everyone else can not do that same, especially in this country where we spend twice the entire wealth of Australia on the people.[/quote]


It would be awfully nice if everyone who worked hard was entitled to a sizable income and great medical coverage, unfortunately, that's unrealistic. So what shall we do not only for ourselves but one another? Most of us would not even be able to read or write if it were not for public education. People can make their own wealth individually or together. At least when we make wealth together we can do so knowing that we are giving back to a community that cared enough to help us begin. I'm speaking as a young American, and I attribute much of my well-being to government provided health care and education when I was living in my parents' house. My father has never been far between many jobs since I can remember, he's worked hard for everything he has, yet he is not a rich man, nor can afford health insurance. What about him and others like him? Too bad for a hard working man and taxpayer who simply does not earn enough? Go ahead and turn a blind eye to those taxpayers who cared enough to give reliable education and medical care to those who have made good use of it. Where you are bitter, I am very grateful. I gladly pay taxes, I only wish that more was done with them.

It really isn't that simple. The reason there is not a government healthcare system like the one you describe is because it doesn't and can't exist. The government has to ration out according to the averages, and no one is satisfied with their service. I have met many people who have complained that with the money they pay in taxes, they could buy health insurance. They would prefer this because it means they would not have to force other taxpayers to subsidise them (and they feel the humiliation of this, keenly) and the private organisations have a greater interest in keeping the customers happy.


(1) Why should anyone be forced to "help" anyone else to a high wage and great medical coverage? The right to work to attain these things are human rights, they themselves are not.

(2) No. If the government was forced out of education, the people could afford to pay for their own childrens' educations, and to have a say in what their children are taught. The private education would aso mean that the schools would have to perform or lose their pupils. I know it killed my parents to have to send me and my brothers to a school of which they didn't approve. They would much rather have paid for our education themselves. They would much rather have paid for insurance and kept out of the government system.

(3) My parents are not rich either, but they are sick of being forced to pay for substandard services they don't want to use, and to subsidise those who had children they can't afford.

How about the government providing people with cars who need one? After all, a car is essential for many commutes and certain types of employment, and the reality is that there are millions of Americans, who, if not for some disadvantage or economic hardship would own one. Shouldn't the government step in and provide those in need with cars? How about computers? Lots of people would have better lives with one, but just can't afford it, because, gosh, life is hard.

The fact is that liberals see that ideas like this are idiotic and are willing to draw the line somewhere - that line usually stops at the stuff that they need.

__________________
Weiner.

If we had zero percent official poverty in the US, would we need "socialized" medicine?

I was reading a Chinese message board today (translated of course... google china and translate the shit, astounding) and they are about as psycho as liberals.

I was reading anti-cnn.com which is a communism chinese site... translate it to english and what they say is astounding and interesting if anyone is smart and is courious enough to "yander" lol.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.