On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 07:52:21PM +0100, Michael Graham said: > > If you define poor worldwide then there would be no poor in the US > (or the UK for that matter) but poor is a relative term, the US has just > as many poor (i.e. below the average) as any other country. If you want a > fair comparison you should really compare developed countries. No, if you want to make a biased case for Socialism you should compare developed countries. If you want to make a fair comparison you should compare what the "poor" in the developed countries have with what you need to survive and have a chance to improve your lot through hard work. And that, everybody in the US has except those who lack the capacity to care for themselves at all, and even most of them. That is the measure of a country; how well those who have the least do, not how much was handed to them. Results; food on the table matters more than intent to put it there. The countries with the worst starvation and disease problems aren't democracies. -- Shawn McMahon | Let's set the record straight. There is no argument EIV Consulting | over the choice between peace and war, but there is UNIX and Linux | only one guaranteed way you can have peace - and you http://www.eiv.com | can have it in the next second - surrender. - Reagan
Attachment:
pgp5N9pFw1EW7.pgp
Description: PGP signature