🚀 go-pugleaf

On 22 Oct 2000 18:30:20 GMT, marvin <marvin@shaftnet.org> wrote:

>and what percentage of those blacks are below the poverty line, compared
>to the national average?
>
>I'm not advocating political correctness, hell, it probibly annoys me as
>much as you, but you are trying to draw a tie between these people being
>black and being more disposed to commit crimes, which i think is really
>not true. I'd be more inclined to place the contributing factors more to
>socio-economic ones.
>
>-- 
>byron thibodeaux jr.

Byron, i would submit that you really don't know what real poverty
looks like.  Remember we have a moving bar in this country that
defines 'poverty'.  The cold fact of the matter is that those on or
below the poverty line in the US live better socio-economic lives than
the middle class of many countries.  When impoverished comes to mean
that a person does not have cable tv, more than one cell phone and a
home computer, it has basically lost it's meaning according to the
global definition of the word.  In other words, poverty is completely
relative and in fact is a political correctness word as it is used in
the US today.

Like some others in this NG, i hail from a time when there really were
poor people, black and white and other colors.  When i see all of the
guvmint safety nets extended to catch anyone who falls below their
subjective line of poverty, then i wonder who is getting shafted, the
people who become dependent on big guvmint or the taxpayers.
The real winner is the guvmint who can count on the votes of the
subjects it bought off with various programs of entitlement.

"The Ministry of Truth reported that the boot quota had been exceeded
by 60%, but still, no one had new boots" (Paraphrase form '1984')

----

"O brave new world, that has such people in it" --