His Highness the TibetanMonkey, aka Comandante Banana
2/18/2011 3:14:00 PM
On Feb 18, 5:32 am, Chief Thracian <chief-thrac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:06:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>
> <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Pity they ALL have poor people ANYWAY.
>
> A lot less than Amerika. One hell of a lot less.
It's a matter of degree, not absolutes as radicals paint it. Tokyo had
some 3,000 homeless vs. 50,000 for New York city.
>
> >Wrong. Its actually typical of those who have enough of
> >a clue to realise that there will ALWAYS be poor people,
> >even if its only the drunks and drug addict 'homeless' etc.
>
> No, we can have relativel poor people, who nonetheless can live
> decently, if they had universal health and all other benefits of a
> fully employed and socialy responsible saftey net. "Poor" in any
> civilized society should mean "I can only afford an apartment instead
> of a house", not the difference between a roof over one's head and
> homelessness.
>
> A civilized society would have a percentage of poor people, w/o anyone
> living in poverty.
Important distinction. They can be poor, have a nice bike, eat healthy
(rice & beans if you will), have medical protection that emphasizes
prevention, have SAFE STREETS (both in terms of crime and traffic),
get rid of gangs through legalization of drugs, and still have a
quality of life.