I haven't lived in the projects in the US but I grew up in their counterpart in Sweden, obviously a much less harsh enviroment because of our flatter social hierarchy, but where I did grow up in the concrete neighbourhood with the cities highest crime rates, with a single mother, so I have a small idea of the situation.

I don't think that people are born criminal or lazy, I believe that the society makes its citizens. I also think that giving people the chance to better themself is a more effective methor than punishing them.

I got some perspective on the problem in the US when I read Barbara Ehrenreichs book "Nickle and Dimed". I really recommend it. She's an investigative journalist and sent herself on a mission. She would move to a city and see if she could survive working low level jobs for a month, if the wage would cover food, gas and a place to live. She worked as a waitress, cleaning woman, caretaker etc 'undercover' in several big cities. It gave a very interesting insight into the problems facing the people who try to make a living this way.

After reading it I would say the problem isn't that welfare is too high but that wages are too low. In a free market economy corporations want unemployment so that they can keep wages down in order to maximise their profits. Reagans (and now Bushs) idea of "trickle down economy" has got to be the funniest and most bisarre pitch ever. If it wasn't so tragic it would make me laugh. The truth is that in such an economy you need strong counterparts in order for society to be healthy. If corporations are allowed to exploit workers you'll see a boom of short time profits for the companies, but in the long run the economy will collapse, because who's going to buy all the stuff you produce so cheaply when nobody gets paid enough to? Who's going to pay the taxes that you'll need to counter it when companies get tax cuts and workers don't make any money? You'll end up with a small group of super rich, and a huge group of poor people. Poor people get desperate and do desperate things, the rich move to gated communities to protect themself from the poor who end up destroying the lives of the ones that can't afford to live in the gated communities, ie: themself.

You need a balance. Normally the corporations are balanced by the unions or the government, but in the US the unions are weak and frowned upon, and the Government is extremely pro-business. Anyone critisising the system is labelled a socialist/communist/anarchist/terrorist and the exploited working stiffs are mesmerized by the "American Dream", you too can be one of the rich people if you only work a little harder... until your back gives out, or you just burn out and bring a shotgun to your work place. If you're work really hard and are lucky enough not to get sick or injured, you might retire at the end of your life and afford a decent nursing home, unless Ken Lay stole your pension money of course.

The vast majority of people will never be rich or live in a gated community, they'll work their asses off and hopefully be able to retire while they still have at least some chance to enjoy a modest pension. A lot won't even be that lucky. Still someone somehow manages to convince these people that the problem is immigrants or people living on welfare or enviromentalists or terrorists... could it be that the ones telling you what the problem is, the ones that seem to benefit from the situation, that they are the problem? Well... I wouldn't say so, I mean I don't want to be called a commie or anarchist...

I was typing while k3nt posted most of my points more elququently than me...

quote="k3nt"]Allstar,I agree. Your interest is not political. But your interest may affect how you behave in a political setting. If you vote, getting hung up on poor welfare cheats is going to make you a lot more likely to vote Republican. That is all.

If you never vote, then I don't much care how you think about these things. [/quote]

I'm only old enough to have voted 3 times.

Twice for GWB, and I was in college in 96 and didnt vote, but probably would have voted for Mr. Dole.

But again, like I said, I dont follow politics as sport. Certain things piss me off. But I do honestly believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if they disagree with me, and I don't much care if people agree with me or not.

But, like I said, pass the damn vodka.

Kent, I bet if we met we could hoist a few drinks and talk about poker without issue, just something about reading your posts about these issues is like nails on a chalkboard for me - no offense, its surely a 2 way street.

Ahh, gotcha. More money, less bureaucracy. Works for me.

(that was in response to emmasdad of course, not allstar)

"I don't think that people are born criminal or lazy, I believe that the society makes its citizens. I also think that giving people the chance to better themself is a more effective methor than punishing them"

Bingo!!!! Giving people money (welfare) for doing nothing breeds laziness. Society is making these people lazy by enabling them to do nothing with their lives. Back to my origianl point. These poor people would be alot better off if they had less kids. The governemnt has no problem trying to legislate every other part of our lives (like trying to stop online gambling) why shouldnt they stop these people from making their lives worse by having more kids they cant afford? Less kids means less crime, lower unemplyment and a better life for the kids already here. Its not very hard to understand that