Charles D Hixson wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 08 August 2001 08:01 am, you wrote:
> > In the news yesterday, it was announced that the State of New
> > Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate in the entire US, of only
> > 4...
> > I think this all pretty much confirms the arguments of
> > libertarians and other free market proponents: socialism creates
> > poverty.
>
> If you needed social service, and could choose, where would you
> live. A place that would let you starve, or a place that at least
> tried to supply you with food and shelter?
Ah, but you are assuming that because NH doesn't have a huge welfare
system that it offers poor quality services to those in poverty. It
doesn't, and is generally considered to have some of the better
services, though it is generally targeted toward steering people toward
training or employment. What NH does have is a time delay barrier that
helps prevent much of other state's poverty from being imported here.
Because of the relative lack of business regulation and low taxes (no
income or sales tax), we attract business, which leads to employment.
This results in low poverty rates, which results in small social
services budgets and therefore low taxes are maintained.
>
> This argument has a basic flaw. I don't know about the relative
> efficiecies, I see information for both sides. I do know that
> people tend to move to where they can live, rather than die. (New
> Hampshire may not be that strict, but I don't live there, so I
> don't know. It could just be that it's so cold in the winter that
> if you aren't sure of a warm place at night, you'ld clearly better
> be somewhere else.)
>
> If you can propose some other direct causal link, then I would like
> to hear it. (Theories must provide relevant and checkable facts.)
>
> This doesn't speak at all to good or bad. To my mind one of the
> destructive actions of the supreme court was to strike down the
> residency requirement for social services. I can see supporting
> members of the community, but when it starts being everybody ...
> some things just aren't possible.
Don't know what you are talking about here. We certainly do have a
residency requirement for social services beyond some very basic
assistance.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT