Ian “the opportunities that the poorest have.”

The problem with measuring anything on the basis of “opportunities” is that “opportunities” are like “potentials”.

As we all know you can place the same “opportunities” in front of any two almost identical people (being the same background, upbringing and social standing etc) between the ages of say three and ninety and you will get two different outcomes. Why ?

Because one will leverage or realise more of their “potential” than the other.

Fact, “opportunities” are only exist and can be seized by those who have worked a little way up Maslow’s pyramid, never at its lowest level.

“Satisfaction of basic needs” will never ever generate “opportunity” anymore than “subsistence farming” will ever produce a “cash crop”.

Every weasel faced socialist politician goes to the electorate and proclaims their commitment to such “subsistence standards”.

KRudd and his “vegetable price committee” election policy being a case in point.

We all remember the wage and price commissions of the 1970s. I certainly remember when some crappy committee declared how much I was allowed to earn, based on what was good for the country (UK).

I vote based on a very simple philosophy, my ballot for the nominee who is most likely to leave me alone to make my own choices, assess my own risks and make my own mistakes.

Why? Because I know that will give me a far better long term outcome than some socialist who wants to make my choices and charge me taxes to take risks and make the mistakes in my name

Could somebody please describe these poor huddling masses. These people on minimum wage jobs. Where are they and who are they, and most importantly, why are they there?

If you take out the handicapped, and those obliged to help them (all of whom I think most on this list would agree should be given assistance) who's left?

It seems to me most people who are on minimum wage are either young people on their first job, those who are uneducated, and those who for some reason, don't try for something better.

Well the young are in transition and there is no reason why anyone should be concerned that they start at the bottom because they shouldn't stay there unless they fall into the latter two categories. As for these later categories, they can overcome those if they choose to.

People who don't even have jobs. Who are they? Please someone describe them. Apart from the handicapped and their carers, who amongst these people isn't largely responsible for their own condition?

Rather than talking about the perceived problems of the gap between rich and poor, isn't it more productive to tell people that the attainment of affluence beyond a certain 'reasonable' level of wealth (as difficult as it may be to define what that level may be) must be factored into their lives? If people aren't happy knowing that their neighbours have more money than them, surely it's better for them to modify their attitude than somehow take some of the neighbours' affluence away from them (which to me is an attack on their fundamental rights)?