On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 11:01:28 -0400, 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 4.4%, versus the
>national average of 9.6%, of families. The US average is at its lowest
>level in 22 years, yet NH's rate is less than half that of the national
>average. State by state breakdowns show that states with significant
>degrees of socialism in the form of welfare, public health care, high
>taxation, and heavy regulation of business have the highest poverty
>rates among families.
>
>Also noted was older data of community level measurments of child
>poverty, which ranges from 3 - 13% from town to town, with the higher
>rates of child poverty occuring, interestingly enough, in those same
>communities that are called 'property poor' towns, which have low
>property valuations due to decades of poor local government at the hands
>of Democrat politicians, and consequently are not able to sufficiently
>fund their local school systems without significant state subsidies.
>
>I think this all pretty much confirms the arguments of libertarians and
>other free market proponents: socialism creates poverty
But poverty is in many respects relative, and so therefore cannot be
defined in absolute dollar amounts (which of course is how they did it
here).
That aside, poverty IMO should be defined as lack of the basics for a
comfortable "western life".
I can assure you that all those welfare moms definitely do have the
comforts of a western life, trust me....
So what you are seeing here is a product of circumstances: states
offering good welfare deals will attract from other states people who
want take advantage of that welfare offered. States which do not do
so, will not reap the "benefits" of this migration....that should be
obvious :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT