NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmm? Just curious.

EDIT- the option "They get too much welfare and should take care of themselves." isn't clear on its meaning. I should have rephrased it to mean that you support some welfare, just not a lot of it. Though that's a gimme considering the last option.

Hmm? Just curious.

They're a necessary evil. Like Wal-Mart or Microsoft. Only the working class have no money.

**coughloserscough**

They should get more job security, better benefits, and more respect for what they do.

they are the best people to have as friends. theyll give you a ride to the airport (even if you do have to climb through the window of their junker to get into the front seat). theyll even bring beer over when they help you install the deck on your double wide trailer.

whats not to like?

Damn your foolish single option poll!! How am I to disguise my true feelings behind spam when I can't vote for everything? There wasn't even a myrth option!

they are the best people to have as friends. theyll give you a ride to the airport (even if you do have to climb through the window of their junker to get into the front seat). theyll even bring beer over when they help you install the deck on your double wide trailer.

whats not to like?

Plus, having tradesmen friends is handy when stuff breaks down, eh? :p

whats not to like?

the smell

Damn your foolish single option poll!! How am I to disguise my true feelings behind spam when I can't vote for everything? There wasn't even a myrth option!

Yeah, I know. It's not like me. Feel free to spam the thread, though.

Yeah, I know. It's not like me. Feel free to spam the thread, though.

You're a bit behind the times, to be fair:p

Let them eat cake.

But seriously, a combination of 1 and 2 with a slight touch of option 4.

what do I think about the Working Class... well it's better than the Unemployed Class. :p

You're a bit behind the times, to be fair:p

Pfeh, laddie, I was adding the Myrth option to my polls since before you even existed here. *shakes cane*

Pfeh, laddie, I was adding the Myrth option to my polls since before you even existed here. *shakes cane*

So why did you stop, huh? Prejudiced against Herons, is it? BAH!

i dont understand your poll. how did we go from working class to poor?
lots of people who work hard every day make a good living.

So why did you stop, huh? Prejudiced against Herons, is it? BAH!

Because I....

*eyes glaze over*

Where's my medication?

*hobbles away with cane*

i dont understand your poll. how did we go from working class to poor?
lots of people who work hard every day make a good living.

Yeah, I phrased it wrong, sorry....but by the time I realised it didn't come out right, i'd already made the thread, and I can't rename it.

(it's 6am and I haven't slept :p)

I built a little empire
out of some crazy garbage
called the blood of the exploited working class...

Now they've over come their shyness,
and their calling me Your Heiness,
and the world says, "Kiss me, Son of God!"

I think that they smell funny and should get the hell back to work.
My Patio isn't going to make itself, wage slaves!
Anyways, If you ask me, then Ruling Caste has far too much need for the Lower Castes to be near their domiciles. To remedy this frightful social dillema I propose that the research currently being wasted on fads such as "AIDS" be redevoted to creating butler and kitchen class robots. Perhaps even a line of home repair machines that don't leave muddy foot-prints all across the place and molest my dinnerware.
All right then, layabouts! OUT! Out, now! I'm not paying you a $1.75 an hour for you to enjoy my climate control system.

I think that they smell funny

Get your own material, punk!

ok
assuming you mean "working poor" instead of working class...

working poor as opposed to those who dont have a paying job but only live off government support.

i think they should get support from the government in terms of affordable housing, food stamps, day care, health care. plus incentives for education programs that can qualify them for better paying jobs.

these are the kind of people who can really use the boost to get themselves out of poverty.

ok
assuming you mean "working poor" instead of working class...

working poor as opposed to those who dont have a paying job but only live off government support.

i think they should get support from the government in terms of affordable housing, food stamps, day care, health care. plus incentives for education programs that can qualify them for better paying jobs.

these are the kind of people who can really use the boost to get themselves out of poverty.

Yep. Exactly what I meant, sorry. I'll ask the mods to change it for clarity.

Ill give you 3 guesses as to how I voted

Ill give you 3 guesses as to how I voted

Harhar. Comrade.

Get your own material, punk!
I'm not paying you to use my computer either, menial drudge! OUT, I SAY!
He befouls my machinery, I WILL HAVE YOUR HANDS FOR THIS, WAGESLAVE! After you finish the Patio of course, one must have one's priorities.
See why I need a Robot Butler urgently? The lower castes are so untrustworthy. I will have to pay a Priest to have my machine purified now, in order to get this low-level FILTH off of it!

I'm not paying you to use my computer either, menial drudge! OUT, I SAY!
He befouls my machinery, I WILL HAVE YOUR HANDS FOR THIS, WAGESLAVE! After you finish the Patio of course, one must have one's priorities.
See why I need a Robot Butler urgently? The lower castes are so untrustworthy. I will have to pay a Priest to have my machine purified now, in order to get this low-level FILTH off of it!

Yeah, but in my country I can have any woman I want. Time to go back there and be with my love slaves. mmm love slaves.

Also, a priest? You're so last century:rolleyes:

Yeah, but in my country I can have any woman I want. Time to go back there and be with my love slaves. mmm love slaves.

Also, a priest? You're so last century:rolleyes:
*Pulls out stick of Class Respect*
Don't *hits Heron* you *hits Heron* ever *hits Heron* speak *hits Heron* such *hits Heron* heresy *hits Heron* again *hits Heron* you *hits Heron* insolent *hits Heron* drudge!
And you'll be hard pressed to go far with whatever woman would morticate herself with you after we have removed you're eleventh finger!
*Cackles and Oppresses the Masses*

Come see the violence inherent in the system! I'm being repressed!

(C'mon, I had to)

But seriously, a combination of 1 and 2 with a slight touch of option 4.
Options 2 and 4 are contradictory - or do you just mean wean them either partially or completely off of welfare?

Options 2 and 4 are contradictory - or do you just mean wean them either partially or completely off of welfare?Yyyess.. that's why it's called a "poll". You see, it involves making a choice, which means picking only one option out of several presented.

Come see the violence inherent in the system! I'm being repressed!

(C'mon, I had to)

There, there. Have a food stamp.

I see absolutely no reason to support another human being just because they happen to have a bad lot in life.

I see absolutely no reason to support another human being just because they happen to have a bad lot in life.

Just be happy that I bought eight candy bars with your tax money.

*laughs*

Just be happy that I bought eight candy bars with your tax money.

*laughs*

pwned;)

pwned;)

And they were delicious. Four Nestle Crunch bars and four Butterfinger Crisp bars. Four for a Dollar! I couldn't resist!!

Oh, and Undelia, I'll be buying more candy next time I hit the supermarket. I'm thinking... Ritter Sport. Oh yeah, I'll also get some of that expensive, but highly unnecessary Digiorno Deep Dish pizza.

Just be happy that I bought eight candy bars with your tax money.

*laughs*
How....constructive.

Anyway, the idea that the working poor are the "backbone of our country" and should "control it," is more than slightly ridiculous on a number of levels, only one of which I will touch upon right now. You ready?

In this country the class commonly referred to as the "working poor" consitutes a distinct minority of the population. Movements sympathetic to worker's rights [socialists etc, I'm looking at you] seek to elevate a certain minority class or category of people to the top of the proverbial food chain, while going on and on about how they want prosperity for everyone: hell, the DSP's motto is "Because EVERYONE Matters!"

And we all know how I feel about contradictions.

How....constructive.

:D

How....constructive.

Anyway, the idea that the working poor are the "backbone of our country" and should "control it," is more than slightly ridiculous on a number of levels, only one of which I will touch upon right now. You ready?

In this country the class commonly referred to as the "working poor" consitutes a distinct minority of the population. Movements sympathetic to worker's rights [socialists etc, I'm looking at you] seek to elevate a certain minority class or category of people to the top of the proverbial food chain, while going on and on about how they want prosperity for everyone: hell, the DSP's motto is "Because EVERYONE Matters!"

And we all know how I feel about contradictions.

I put "backbone of society" in the poll, not "country". Society need not be viewed necessarily upon a national scale.

I put "backbone of society" in the poll, not "country". Society need not be viewed necessarily upon a national scale.
Ah, fair enough. I saw this thread a few hours before I responded to it and came in from memory.

Still, point stands.

Ah, fair enough. I saw this thread a few hours before I responded to it and came in from memory.

Still, point stands.

Sortof...except socialism isn't explicitly a movement for the "poor".

We're not just about the poor, we're about justice for all workers.

...hell, the DSP's motto is "Because EVERYONE Matters!"...
What a cheap shot!

At any rate, the majority of our members do not want to elevate poor people into a position of power.
All we want is a balance - complete freedom and individualism has so far not led to more equality, and the US apparently has never been particularly outstanding in the income mobility ratings.

That probably makes us the a centrist party. Poor people are not (and I don't know how often I need to stress this) less important, less worthy members of society. Leaving them by the wayside is not an option.
Seeing figures on how many children of poor people remain poor, and how few can make it (although surely it is in everyone's best interest to try - even with welfare you live a better life with 50k than with 10), support for them is a wise use of resources.

That probably makes us a centrist party.

HA! I knew it all along. :p

What a cheap shot!

At any rate, the majority of our members do not want to elevate poor people into a position of power.
All we want is a balance - complete freedom and individualism has so far not led to more equality, and the US apparently has never been particularly outstanding in the income mobility ratings.

That probably makes us the a centrist party. Poor people are not (and I don't know how often I need to stress this) less important, less worthy members of society. Leaving them by the wayside is not an option.
Seeing figures on how many children of poor people remain poor, and how few can make it (although surely it is in everyone's best interest to try - even with welfare you live a better life with 50k than with 10), support for them is a wise use of resources.

I tend to agree that we should do our part to support those who are stuck in unfortunate circumstances, but I do not wish the government to create and finance a massive wealth redistribution scheme wherein the scheme itself costs so much money that there's not nearly as much making it over to the folks who need it as there should be.

I tend to agree that we should do our part to support those who are stuck in unfortunate circumstances, but I do not wish the government to create and finance a massive wealth redistribution scheme wherein the scheme itself costs so much money that there's not nearly as much making it over to the folks who need it as there should be.
That's the way we try and do it. Personally I think the easier you make welfare, the better.
It saves the bureaucracy money and it saves the recipient a lot of trouble. Negative Income Tax is probably the simplest way to do it.

"Wealth Redistribution" (while somewhat correct) is an ugly word in that it suggests that it has to be a large scale thing. As long as nobody has to live in squalor and gets a real chance to improve their situation, I'm happy.

My own NS country, Leonstein (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=leonstein), is pretty much ideal in my opinion, and it spends 18% on welfare. For whatever reason though, it has a 100% tax rate...:confused:
Must be the money I keep pouring into education.

That's the way we try and do it. Personally I think the easier you make welfare, the better.
It saves the bureaucracy money and it saves the recipient a lot of trouble. Negative Income Tax is probably the simplest way to do it.

I prefer individual or group charity, myself.

"Wealth Redistribution" (while somewhat correct) is an ugly word in that it suggests that it has to be a large scale thing. As long as nobody has to live in squalor and gets a real chance to improve their situation, I'm happy.

I like "wealth redistribution". You can use it to describe giving your friend five dollars for lunch or payiing 100% of your income in taxes. It's one of those cool ambiguous political phrases.:)

I prefer individual or group charity, myself.
I would too, if I believed it could ever be adequate. But I don't.

I would too, if I believed it could ever be adequate. But I don't.

Not ever? I figure if enough folks realize that irrational self-interest ain't doing shit for them and passing out blame don't do much good, we may just see enough charity and compassion to make our societies worth a damn for a change. In the meantime, I figure we can leave folks to make their own mistakes to the detriment of others, seeing as that's what they'll do whether it's with regard to money or not and there's no call to remove folks' liberty so you can have a forced equality that's bound to fail anyway without the right cultural context.

Not ever? I figure if enough folks realize that irrational self-interest ain't doing shit for them and passing out blame don't do much good, we may just see enough charity and compassion to make our societies worth a damn for a change.
Wouldn't that require some rationality? ;)

In the meantime, I figure we can leave folks to make their own mistakes to the detriment of others, seeing as that's what they'll do whether it's with regard to money or not and there's no call to remove folks' liberty so you can have a forced equality that's bound to fail anyway without the right cultural context.
All I want is equality of opportunity. Having an Income Tax or a Welfare System doesn't deny anyone the opportunity to achieve.
But not having it does deny it to the children of the poor and all those who lost what is theirs.

I don't think everyone is equal. I do think that everyone has an intrinsic worth as a human being, beyond the sum of the market value of the hours worked during their life.
But before we can't essentially solve the economic problem, and produce so much with so little effort that having money becomes more and more irrelevant to quality of life, there is no way everyone can be made equally well off. And even if there were, it wouldn't be desirable.

Wouldn't that require some rationality? ;)

Nah. It's easy enough to reach correct conclusions by irrational means. Just get lucky and stumble upon the truth. Use empirical tests. Whatever.

All I want is equality of opportunity. Having an Income Tax or a Welfare System doesn't deny anyone the opportunity to achieve.

But it often denies folks the liberty of doing what they wish with the stuff they worked for.

But not having it does deny it to the children of the poor and all those who lost what is theirs.

Not necessarily. But getting around it does mean that we all have to take responsibility for ourselves and our society, and most folks would rather not have to do that. That's their mistake, and there's no way to stop that mistake from happening except through education. Given the amount of spending education you do, I figure we pretty much agree about the importance of education.

I don't think everyone is equal. I do think that everyone has an intrinsic worth as a human being, beyond the sum of the market value of the hours worked during their life.

Ya know, we may or may not have an intrinsic value. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to give everybody respect enough that our society doesn't have to contain harmful violence borne out of resentment due to oppression. That's respect; not equal opportunity, not full equality. I figure it's best to treat folks according to who they are and appropriate to their circumstances, not according to a standard of equality that doesn't correspond to reality because folks ain't equal. Valuable, sure. But not equal, and not necessarily deserving of opportunity that's equal to the opportunity other folks get.

But before we can't essentially solve the economic problem, and produce so much with so little effort that having money becomes more and more irrelevant to quality of life, there is no way everyone can be made equally well off. And even if there were, it wouldn't be desirable.

Why don't you see pure economic equality as desirable? I don't either, but I'm curious as to what your reasoning is.

I have nothing but admiration for the working poor. I revere those who work hard to put food on the table for their family and secure a better future for their children.

As for economic and social policy regarding the working poor, several things:

First of all, being poor is not a bad thing. On the contrary. The hard left who keep militanting for the working poor base their anti-capitalist discourse on a fundamental contradiction: as much as they claim to oppose the capitalist system, they play into it by always demanding more money. They oppose consumerism and yet act as though the working poor can only be happy if they can afford DVD players and trendy clothes. For people who claim to despise money they are sure obsessed by it.

Poverty is a good thing. It is an expression of humility. Not being able to afford everything is no tragedy. It allows you to realise what is important and what is not. It teaches you values. On average, the working poor are probably more honest than the bourgeois.

What must be fought is abject poverty, the kind that does not allow you to provide decently for your family. This poverty is an offense to human dignity and should be fought both by the state through basic welfare and healthcare, and incentives for private charity.

What matters for the working poor isn't that they should stop being poor. It's that a- as I've said, that they should not fall into abject poverty, and b- that they can secure a better future for their children. This means that social mobility should be encourages. And state intervention into social life, though well-meaning, often does more bad than good and creates blocks for social mobility.

What is best for society isn't that the state hand out money to the working poor today, but that they should allow the working poor to earn a better future for their children tomorrow.

But it often denies folks the liberty of doing what they wish with the stuff they worked for.
And that is such a problem? As long as you keep everything within limits, having to pay even as much as half your income to the state does not seem to make rich people unhappy, or hurt the economy that much - if it is done alongside properly managed policies.
Sweden has always been an example of a country that's been doing that very well.

But getting around it does mean that we all have to take responsibility for ourselves and our society, and most folks would rather not have to do that. That's their mistake, and there's no way to stop that mistake from happening except through education.
Are you from the US? Because that is classical American Social Optimism.
"If you're poor, that means it's your fault" - whether you say they're lazy or that they're not taking responsibility for their lifes (whatever that may mean).
I always wondered why that is so prevalent on the other side of the pond.

Given the amount of spending education you do, I figure we pretty much agree about the importance of education.
I certainly do. But education that is accessible even to the very poor, it must be said.
And that sadly excludes privatising and liberalising it completely.
As a politician and bureaucrat, I'd love not to have to get involved. The less I'd have to do, the better. But that kind of thinking does not stand in the way of the obvious with me.

...But not equal, and not necessarily deserving of opportunity that's equal to the opportunity other folks get.
I guess that makes sense if you really do blame the Poor for being poor.

Why don't you see pure economic equality as desirable? I don't either, but I'm curious as to what your reasoning is.
Well, desirable or not, it's impossible. The Incentive-thing comes into it too.
And last but not least because I'm a hypocrite, just like everybody else, who would like to be rewarded for his work.

And that is such a problem? As long as you keep everything within limits, having to pay even as much as half your income to the state does not seem to make rich people unhappy, or hurt the economy that much - if it is done alongside properly managed policies.
Sweden has always been an example of a country that's been doing that very well.

I'm sure it does. And do you know why? Because folks over there tend to be the way they need to be in order to have a society that's worth a damn.

Let's take a look at some basics. Society A has a lot of popular support for wealth redistribution and a highly educated populace that sees the need for giving appropriate opportunities to the folks in their communities. In this case, Society A can function well regardless of wealth redistribution precisely because it has a culture that already supports a good society. Society B has some popular support for wealth redistribution and poorly-educated populace that doesn't see the need for giving to anyone but themselves for the most part, so you're not going to have enough support for the kind of wealth redistribution that would actually make a positive difference.

Are you from the US? Because that is classical American Social Optimism.
"If you're poor, that means it's your fault" - whether you say they're lazy or that they're not taking responsibility for their lifes (whatever that may mean).
I always wondered why that is so prevalent on the other side of the pond.

Don't put words in mouth. I don't appreciate the stereotyping either.

I never said anything about the poor in particular not taking responsibility for their own lives. Almost everybody, regardless of circumstances, indulges in self-pity and tries to avoid taking full responsibility for their life at some point. All of us need to fix that, not just poor folks.

I certainly do. But education that is accessible even to the very poor, it must be said.

Of course. There's no way I can see to have a better society without some form of government sponsorship of education, at least at first. How the hell are we going to have informed voters, informed politicians, etc. if they aren't given information?

I guess that makes sense if you really do blame the Poor for being poor.

Well since you're operating on assumptions based on stereotypes, I bet it sure looks that way.

But I suppose I could actually be thinking that folks born with rich parents and lots of innate talents don't necessarily need their community to provide them with as many opportunities as poor and largely untalented folks might need. That'd be surprisingly reasonable of me, what with me sitting here across the pond.

Well, desirable or not, it's impossible. The Incentive-thing comes into it too.
And last but not least because I'm a hypocrite, just like everybody else, who would like to be rewarded for his work.

Interesting. *shrug* I suppose incentive is as good a reason as any other for it not to be desirable.

I have nothing but admiration for the working poor. I revere those who work hard to put food on the table for their family and secure a better future for their children.

As for economic and social policy regarding the working poor, several things:

First of all, being poor is not a bad thing. On the contrary. The hard left who keep militanting for the working poor base their anti-capitalist discourse on a fundamental contradiction: as much as they claim to oppose the capitalist system, they play into it by always demanding more money. They oppose consumerism and yet act as though the working poor can only be happy if they can afford DVD players and trendy clothes. For people who claim to despise money they are sure obsessed by it.

Poverty is a good thing. It is an expression of humility. Not being able to afford everything is no tragedy. It allows you to realise what is important and what is not. It teaches you values. On average, the working poor are probably more honest than the bourgeois.

What must be fought is abject poverty, the kind that does not allow you to provide decently for your family. This poverty is an offense to human dignity and should be fought both by the state through basic welfare and healthcare, and incentives for private charity.

What matters for the working poor isn't that they should stop being poor. It's that a- as I've said, that they should not fall into abject poverty, and b- that they can secure a better future for their children. This means that social mobility should be encourages. And state intervention into social life, though well-meaning, often does more bad than good and creates blocks for social mobility.

What is best for society isn't that the state hand out money to the working poor today, but that they should allow the working poor to earn a better future for their children tomorrow.
i like this post. i wouldnt go quite so heavily on the joys of being poor but otherwise its pretty true.

its not a life of unremitting horror where you are one day away from starvation. its "getting by". shopping at walmart. fixing things rather than replacing them. buying the knock off instead of the name brand. having to wait to replace the DVD player that broke. worrying about how you are going to pay the heating bills this winter, REALLY worrying because it means that there are bills you wont be able to pay.

"Working poor" is a problematical term because there's some dispute/confusion over what "poor" means.

Poverty is a relative condition until you get to the extreme of not being able to provide for basic survival -- food, home, clothes, health care -- without help. That's beyond poor, and a society that has the resources to prevent that from happening to its citizens but doesn't is seriously fucked up, imo. Nobody should bitch about their tax dollars being used to prevent that kind of thing.

But that's abject poverty, not the "working poor." I know plenty of people, in the US, who hold down full time jobs, sometimes more than one, and still don't earn enough to meet rent, food, and health costs. That wages can be so out of keeping with the cost of living is outrageous, imo, and a fault in our society. On the other hand, I know a lot of other people who work full time jobs and can't meet their bills but won't acknowledge that they are living way beyond their means, trying to keep up a richer lifestyle than they're earning.

Elitism combined with consumerism confuses the whole debate.

Hmm? Just curious.

EDIT- the option "They get too much welfare and should take care of themselves." isn't clear on its meaning. I should have rephrased it to mean that you support some welfare, just not a lot of it. Though that's a gimme considering the last option.
I voted for #1, though I don't believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat, nor do I agree that welfare recipients should lack the right to vote.

I think that it's rather patronising and untrue to claim that poor people mostly depend on welfare. The working poor do not.

What kind of idiot would vote for #5? Even if you think you shouldn't have to support them, why would you think them to be worthless?

I see absolutely no reason to support another human being just because they happen to have a bad lot in life.
Self-interest is a good reason. Nationality binds us all to our countrymen. Countries with great levels of inequality have the greatest crime rates. Countries with more equality suffer less crime. I would rather live in a place with less crime.

Guns and police are good, but they can only go so far, and prevention is always better than cure.

I think that it's rather patronising and untrue to claim that poor people mostly depend on welfare. The working poor do not.


Yeah, it was a fuckup on my part, I know....sorry.

EDIT- When I made this thread, it was 6:30 in the morning and I'd been awake for about 25 hours. A certain post i saw here annoyed me (hence option #5) and I went to make a thread relating to that and see who else felt that way, but ended up being all over the place.

EDIT2- Although most of the working poor (at least in Australia) do rely upon some form of welfare in the form of medical aid, etc. so it's not that inaccurate after all.

I see absolutely no reason to support another human being just because they happen to have a bad lot in life.
I think everyone who is sick and cannot afford health care should come hang out at your place and get the barbecue going. It'd be nice to hear what you have to say to them all to their face.

What do I think of the working poor?
I think they taste great!

Let's take a look at some basics...
So social re-engineering is the answer then?
Turn all people in the States into Swedes through some sort of education?

So social re-engineering is the answer then?
Turn all people in the States into Swedes through some sort of education?

edumuhcation? What manner of tomfoolery is this?

Well, at least they're working.

I'm a fan of the working poor since I count myself among them. I'm not on welfare or anything, but I have had to get government cheese in the past, and I've been to charity hospitals more times than I like to remember because I didn't have insurance. I'm fortunate now--I've got a decent job and I'm using my degrees, but I'm deep in debt as a result and my job doesn't pay enough to both pay rent and pay student loans.

Hmm? Just curious.

EDIT- the option "They get too much welfare and should take care of themselves." isn't clear on its meaning. I should have rephrased it to mean that you support some welfare, just not a lot of it. Though that's a gimme considering the last option.


I don't mind helping the working poor, as so long as the working poor are there through no fault of their own; if both of them work, but live in a city with high living costs, and thus, suck most of the cash out of their income, then I don't mind helping out, HOWEVER, I do have a problem helping those who have more children than they can afford then start demanding that the tax payer, either via tax credits or child welfare payments to pay for their chosen lifestyle choice.

Its not about being a tightass, its about helping those who are in genuine need, through no fault of their own, but making those who made unwise choices in their life, to pay for those consequences.

Now, some people wills scream, "they should get educated" sorry, but only 25% of the population will EVER be university educated, the simply fact of the matter is that most people sit in that middle class, most have minimal higher education, maybe a diploma or certificate via a polytechnic, but the fact remains that they're the ones who drag the economy along, doing the mundane and repetative jobs; if everyone was educated and expected high paying jobs, who would serve at the local servo, supermarket, clean the streets?

Everyone has a purpose and a role in society, it shouldn't be able belittleing peoples contributions but ensuring that they're paid and supported enough as to allow them to atleast keep their head above the water line and allowing them to have aspirations beyond simply scraping together the funds and surviving.

i like this post. i wouldnt go quite so heavily on the joys of being poor but otherwise its pretty true.

its not a life of unremitting horror where you are one day away from starvation. its "getting by". shopping at walmart. fixing things rather than replacing them. buying the knock off instead of the name brand. having to wait to replace the DVD player that broke. worrying about how you are going to pay the heating bills this winter, REALLY worrying because it means that there are bills you wont be able to pay.Well, maybe I went a little heavily, but the propensity we have as a society to determine success by the amount of money made is annoying. You can be poor and successful. I've seen way too many kids' lives wasted because they grew up as spoiled brats and were never taught values. If you teach your kids how to be a good person then you're much more successful than most CEOs. And this is what we should help the working poor with, not affording the special edition of Finding Nemo.