And the government you apparantly find favor with would encourage this by
social programs, which have been in place since the depression, and have
not solved the problem?
The logic escapes me.
Social welfare programs are band aids, temporary protection until healing
has occurred. For nearly all of us, this means employment that pays us
enough to buy shelter, utilities, food, clothing and transportation to get
to and from employment.
Other social programs: education, health care, child-care, etc., if well
designed and administered, can help some people lift themselves into the
level of productive, tax-paying citizens. Some people will always be poor;
some people choose to be homeless.
The diminishment of the middle class is of greater impact on our society
and the strength of the country. A country of a few rich and lots of
poor--we are not there but are moving in that direction--tends toward
crime, dissatisfaction, estrangement, anarchy, unrest and revolution.
Today, we might say it trends toward terrorism, but that seems to be more
dogma driven than economic. Osama bin Laden may disagree. I don't know how
he thinks.
The seemingly smart people I read persuade that a small upper class, a
large middle class, and a small lower class, tend to constitute a stable
society. So, our current trend is dangerous.
RE: [Homestead] Globalism - was 'stolen'
, (continued)