Gerry wrote:

> My suggestion is suicide.

They can try their children before suicide. Perhaps a homeless shelter or other
charitable organization.

People might also go somewhere with a considerably lower cost (but decent
standard) of living such as Southeast Asia or Latin America.

> > So if through some miracle the minority of people who are considered

> > poor (about 11% in the US, or 4% in Japan)
>
> You're citing dogma. Under Reagen we had the "percentage of those
> living under poverty" dramatically diminish.  They decided that 12k and
> under was poverty for a family of four instead of 15 or some such.
> They later did the same thing with unemployment figures deciding that
> anybody who hadn't documented their search for work was "no longer
> looking" for work and thus not unemployed anymore.  Where the hell can
> you get statistics except from someone running for office?

The Census Bureau released these figures to the press.

http://tinyurl.com/6stfm

Hmm. 12.5% of people in poverty.

I may not agree with the set point of the poverty line, but I have fair confidence
that that figure represents the number of people below that line. About 36 million
people in the US. Nothing near a voting majority.

> > were able to have their voices heard, would it not bother you if
> > taxes were raised on those better able to care of themselves or their
> > benefits cut, to pay for those less able to take care of themselves?
>
> Do you think that a voting populace not taking responsbility for the
> operation of their own government to further the citizenry's needs is a
> good thing?

No, but only about half of registered voters in the US turn out to vote, and I
can't say most people would volunteer to take on additional taxes even to help
others who may need it.