> Are you going to deal with the remaining questions or continue
> practicing debate tricks?
Honestly, I'm doing no such thing. I just finished a post where
I tried to conscientiously attempt an answer to each of your
questions. In fact, I had thought that you were ducking *my*
question about Minimal Guaranteed Income :-) but I'm sure
that this is just a misunderstanding.
My question below was about what Barbara had written; first
someone said that starvation was the alternative to having
an GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income)---or that's at least what
I honestly thought they said, and then Barbara pointed out
that starvation didn't actually occur, but malnutrition did,
e.g. tuberculosis. I thought that maybe a lot more people
were suffering and dying from that than I thought; I always
stand to be corrected.
Please be patient and re-ask any question that you think has
been overlooked; it could be a clerical error.
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Barbara writes
> > > Usually undernourished people's immune systems shut down and they die of
> > > pneumonia, tuberculosis, or some other infectious disease. Tuberculosis is
> > > becoming quite a problem in Mexico lately and in certain poor areas of the
> > > U.S.A.
> > Have any idea how many people each year die from tuberculosis?
> > > Once they're past the toddler stage, children tend to be fairly robust and
> > > can survive on a very poor diet, although they may suffer from various
> > > learning disabilities and other mental and emotional disorders. I know from
> > > personal observation that some children have only the free breakfast and
> > > lunch provided by schools, occasionally supplemented by what they're able to
> > > steal from stores or scrounge from dumpsters.
> > Well, "malnutrition" doesn't have the rhetorical advantages
> > of "starvation!". But evidently it's a lot closer to the mark.
> > (You've been providing some pretty good info... sorry for
> > pressing my luck:)
> > Have any idea of how many children in the U.S. are severely
> > malnourished. Yes, I'm sure that government programs help
> > out a lot in the sense that many children get their nutrition
> > from programs. But we must remember that many of these children
> > would be fed by their parents, if their parents didn't freely
> > have a government program to take advantage of.
> > We must also not overlook the fact that the U.S. government was
> > paying about 20 billion dollars a year to young women to have
> > children out of wedlock in the sixties, seventies, and eighties.
> > Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT