Blog powered by Typepad

« Problem solved! | Main | Thank God for The National Review »

Tuesday, 30 October 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

403 Forbidden cloudflare.

That's what I found when trying to get here through the usual link

I've needed the help of Google to finally arrive. And no way of posting my comment with Typepad as usual.

Maybe they're on you, my friend. Or is it on me?

I have e-mailed you privately Ortega to tell you that this the correct address - according to Typepad!!!!!!


When President Johnson declared war on paverty, someone actually decided to define poverty. Iet was n ot, as some would tell you, a lack of color television, which was a rarity in 1965. Rather, the agriculture Department calculated what it would cost to provide a basic food budget, and, triple that and you have the poverty level. Various Lefited in the past half century have monkeyed around with this definition, but it still stands, mostly.

I know that food is more expensive in the UK, than in North America, and housing is a bit more there, too. However, the hard and fast rules for calculating poverty still work. I also know that food as a portion of monthly household budgets in less, now, thanks to the dirty capitalist agribusiness, and their astonishing productivity. But, no one is really offering any rational mathematical analysis.The Lefties just want to scream hysterically, about this as about everything else. Yes, housing is a bigger bite, but it is better housing, central heat, and AIR Conditioning are now standard, as are dishwashers, which they were ot when we began our married life. Again, the rough calculations still work. As always, when thef t begins is regularly caterwauliong, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.

Sorry, writing without my glasses again. Good luck, friends!

Poverty, such as it is in the US, has been weaponized for votes, for stuffing the various government agencies concerned with pointless bureaucrats as 'rent seekers'. There is also the poverty industry which has become very powerful, especially in real estate issues. They know, poverty is profitable. To cement this induced poverty, rules were crafted to break up families so "shazzam" government was needed to supply a remedy! What a fraud!

Maybe Britain has a similar approach to organized poverty?

My wife was a Food Stamp caseworker in the seventies, and it was considered to be a fairly efficient program, by Government standards. Then, as now, the percentage of Food Stamp money that actually went to poor people was around twenty percent.

The Texas Legislature tried, about twenty years ago, to stream line the process, allowing a SLIGHTLY higher fraud and error rate, and cutting administrative costs in half. The caterwauling and moaning that ensued would have one believe that this was an attack on "poor people". Of course, it was nothing of the sort. Rather, the amount of money that poor and working people paid in taxes would have been spent more efficiently, but that was anathema to Democrats.

The comments to this entry are closed.