Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (18347)	12/11/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: iandiareii	Respond to of 67261

Les-- The article I responded to makes mention of a 1970s report that documented the gap in health among Britain's rich and poor. The recent, second government inquiry found that the gap has widened over the decades. For example: In the early 1970s the mortality rate for unskilled men of working age was almost twice that for professional men. Today it is almost three times higher. Is it your contention that Britain's real (not nominal) spending on social welfare has increased over the years? Or that the unemployment rate is higher now than it was in the 1970s? Your assertion that "the costs of these programs make it difficult for businesses to hire employees, thus keeping poverty high" as an explanation for the declining health of the poor requires a "yes" answer to both those questions. I'd love to see the figures, especially since the article I responded to asserts that those programs were defunded under Thatcher and that new Labour has not restored those cuts. ian