----- Original Message -----
From: Billy Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: Didn't need no welfare state (Was: Re: news...)
> Emlyn (pentacle) wrote:
> > Maybe you can look at welfare this way:
> > Givens:
> > - There is always going to be a segment of the population which is "dead
> > weight", ie not able to support itself. This seems a fairly reasonable
> > to me, but if you don't agree, speak up!
> True, but with two very important caveats:
> (paraphrased; 1: there is enough work, 2: welfare begets welfare
I should have said
- There is always going to be a segment of the population which is "dead
weight", ie not able OR NOT WILLING to support itself.
I don't condone this on the part of the unwilling (I am often surrounded by
unwilling, and they annoy the hell out of me), but I do see it as a
I don't think the caveats above in any way undermine my original argument
(entirely unoriginal though it is).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:34 MDT