Michel Boucher wrote:

> The solution might be even simpler, but let's not rule out that it may
> require some funding somewhere. Look at the success of microlending in
> places like Bangladesh where what we consider to be poverty here is
> referred to as a lavish lifestyle (I'm kidding, but not really).
>

Maybe that would work in some places. Look at the example I posted of a young
native woman who was given $234,000 when she rached the age of 18. Gone.
Wasted. Look at the amount of money our federal government spends on "native
programs. " It is billions of dollars per year, but the native people on
reserves are still in a bad way.

> If instead of kvetching about cost, we addressed the fundamental issue, not
> the symptom...but that would actually require taking your eyes off the
> sacrosanct economy.

I am entitled to Kvetch about cost. I pay taxes. I would rather have the money
for my own use. If you want to donate your own money and throw it into that
bottomless pit of need, feel free.


> When societies such as ours are saddled with governments who hold as
> virtuous idea that they must not risk any damage to the economy to benefit
> society, you know you're in for a rough ride. Luckily, their cycle is
> dying and sanity will prevail yet again.

I will have more faith in the system when higher percentages of welfare
recipients get off the dole and their children don't end up on it.