There will always be working poor, just as there will always be people who need to start out in the labor market and just as there will always be people who are not productive enough to justify higher wages.

This notion that there is this large group of people who were unable to purchase gas is ridiculous. Even if they had only a portion each, they could have pooled their resources.

Instead of 'can't' here is an example of 'can'. I used to be a waiter and all of the bus boys were mexicans (dish washers and cooks too). They lived in the poor section of town and lived 8 or so to a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment. They saved a bunch of money that they sent out to mexico for their families.

Somehow these 'working poor' are able to save 30%+ of their meager earnings. And why do they do it? Because they are responsible and have a strong sense of family duty.

And yes, when I was a waiter I was part of your 'working poor'. We have the wonderful ability in this country to improve our lot when government is not 'keeping us down'.

Here's something else I posted elsewhere:
It seems to me that conservatives can appear 'mean' in public forums, blogs and discussions. I think it comes partly from the desire of people to 'want to do something'. When we see a problem, we want to 'fix it'.

In this context, the discussion usually goes something like this:
Liberal: Oh my, look at that problem. We should fix it. We can make a government program that will address this.
Conservative: I don't want my tax dollars to go to them.
Liberal: You are mean.

Or some variation.

From my perspective, the cure is often worse than the problem. I have posted before about moral hazard. To review, moral hazard occurs after a contract, and describes the change in parameters/behaviors due to the contract. Examples would include:

- someone who purchases insurance may behave in a more risky fashion.
- people purchasing 3rd world debt with the assumption it will be covered by Other countries in the event of a default because they have before
- Savings and loans institutions that invest in more speculative investments because FDIC is increased to $100,000.

What is key, is that the behavior has changed and in many cases in a fashion that is not in the best interest of the contra party.

We can see this kind of behavior in other government policies. In particular I see it in the way that government 'crowds out' traditional financial and moral relationships.

- Women have babies out of wedlock more frequently, because the relative cost has decreased due to government aid.
- People do not save as much because the government finances their unemployment and retirement.

In essence, instead of taking care of themselves and their families, people have become more reliant on the government. The roles of the traditional family are being taken over by the government. This has had the effect of weakening the family in our society.

In this role of guarenteer of financial security, the government can not eliminate the risk, it can only move it. And it does this in a inefficient manner.

In the case of the minimum wage, the government puts the same people it is trying to help out of work. By increasing the price for laber, the government decreases demand for that labor and increases supply, with the result that the unemployed increases.

In the case of rent ceilings, the demand for space increases while the supply decreases, with the result that another gap is created, again hurting the very same people that you are trying to help.

In the case of unions, unions create a 'minimum wage' effect, where their pay is above market clearing prices, with the result that the demand for labor is decreased, ie fewer jobs.

In the case of education, the inner city schools are being mismanaged because they are being run based on political/union considerations and not on market incentives.

In the case of school busing, an attempt was made to force our society to integrate. This led to white flight, decreasing urban populations and potential tax revenues. Integration failed and destroyed parts of Detroit, New Orleans and other cities without large immigration populations.

In the case of public housing, all of the anti-social behaviors that are at risk in poor populations were amplified.

In the case of public assistance, poor people were trapped into poverty due to the disincentives to work. This is the result of the poor having effectively the highest marginal tax rate.

In the case of elderly, some who would like to work do not because they would lose benefits, again high marginal tax rates.

In the case of affirmative action, racial tensions are made worse because a white worker has to make up for the slack of the unqualified black worker and/or the white worker does not feel the black worker deserves to have the job and/or the position that the black worker has is at the cost of a white worker.

I have hoped to show some snippets of how government solutions tend to make situations worse rather than better. I do not hate the spirit of liberal causes but I have great reservations on their methods. If left to their own devices, people have the remarkable ability to take care of themselves.