Gene Kearns wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:58:49 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

MadDogDave wrote:

The 12 Percent Problem
Thank goodness for our wonderful president and his efforts to maintain
the underclass. Jesus is proud.



One of the saddest statistics in the still eerily jobless recovery is
that 1.3 million more Americans fell into poverty last year — almost
half of them children. Whatever else is on the national agenda, there
should be no higher priority than directing already available help to
these least among us. But the growth in the poverty roll to almost 35
million — more than 12 percent of the population — has been accompanied
by an equally disturbing drop in those impoverished families who are
eligible for limited welfare actually managing to obtain the aid.

After the end of the old welfare system was legislated, time-limited
help for the needy was enacted, with more than three in four eligible
families benefiting in 1996. But by 2000, only half the eligible
families were receiving this aid, for reasons not fully plumbed as
government officials continue to simplistically trumpet the drop in the
welfare caseload. Clearly, more poor people are hurting more,
particularly in the vanishing of employment opportunities that were
promised and prodded as part of the new, temporary aid program.

As more families sink below the poverty line, joblessness among single,
undereducated mothers is up to 18 percent; and families whose temporary
welfare help ends are increasingly unlikely to find jobs in the current
resistant economy, according to recent data analysis by the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank. Years ago, the
nation chose to proclaim a "war" on poverty. Priorities shifted as
progress was measured. The poor are still out there at the edge of the
scope, the last in line for recovery.



Hey! The Konservatives in this Kountry only care about preventing the
abortion of a fetus. Once there is a live birth into an impoverished
family, the Konservative koncern over "right to life" ends.


It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave


I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open..... This has to the
most incredibly outrageously stupid statement I have *ever* read...
anywhere.

Reflecting on this statement, for the first time I have to wonder if
Harry is right. For me, that is a scary thought.....



Dave is known for outrageously stupid statements, though the one you
cite certainly is a keeper. Reflect on what Dave is actually saying here
and you'll have a much clearer understanding of why I think
right-wingers like Dave are trash.

Note that I am NOT referring to all right-wingers in this fashion. But
if they espouse the "Dave belief" he has stated here, they are nothing
but trash.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.