"Bush campaign ads using team"

[Ajax]

something in the order of 40 milion americans lived under the poverty line. So something must be wrong with that "persecution of the majority". I know that if those 40 milion would vote for a socialist party they would have directly an enormous amount of seats in parliament, so they could make changes. For some reason this does not happen

I think one big mistake you may be making, eppie, is to think of the US and Netherlands as comparative cases. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Netherlands has a population of around 17M and total area of 41,526 square miles. "slightly less than the size of New Jersey." :) America's numbers, by contrast, are 293M people and 9.6M square miles. America's poverty class, using the 40M number, amounts to under 14% of the total population. That's not the best record, but it's hardly a "persecution of the majority." It makes sense that such a large number of poor seems astounding to you, being over double your own country's population, but it is hardly the worst percentage out there.

My point is furthered by the fact that the smaller the population the easier it is to have a high standard of living. For example, look at the per capita GDP of various countries. Of the top five, Luxemberg has a population of 0.46M, Norway of 4.57M, Bermuda of around 65K(!), and the Cayman Islands of around 43K(!). Compare these to the United States' 293M. So as far as quality of life goes, it isn't too bad over here. Of course, the limitation of per capita GDP is that a large, very rich or large, very poor population can skew the results, but it does offer a rough analytical perspective.

But onto another topic here. Sir_Die_alot mentioned that

Finally it's not that they don't vote, due to their immigration status they can't vote.

While his point is noted--that some people in the United States who are low income can't vote due to their immigration status--he is wrong that poor people want to vote. It is sad but true that the US has a relatively low voter turnout; but the worst turnouts are found in low-income households. This is referring to registered voters, not ineligible populations; and it should be noted that the fact that they registered at all is an indicator that they are relatively active politically. There is a larger population of unregistered voters who simiply don't care to get involved in the political process.

The best explanation for this phenomenon is that the poor have little invested in the current system, so they have little to lose by its inefficient governance. Sort of like watching a game of blackjack but not putting any of your own money on the table.

And Finally (because I'm sure you're all tired of hearing from me :)), something Nystul said just isn't true:

A lot of the poverty in this country is a self-inflicted condition. At UDF, there is a sign saying "positions available, $8-$10/hour". Outside UDF, there is a guy bumming change from the customers going in and out. Given a high school diploma, a clean criminal record, a good attitude, and no serious physical or mental handicaps, there are places everywhere in this country just waiting to hire you, that will offer double minimum wage and full benefits. A lot of the poor here aren't in a position to take advantage of those opportunities, but an aweful lot of them are (or certainly could be, if not for their own bad choices along the way).

While it is true that some people are poor by choice (it takes all kinds) and by addiction/habit (even more kinds); there is a population of homeless out there who really couldn't have done anything to avoid their condition. In fact, capitalism cannot function without excess labor--thus, the unemployed. You also overlook the fact that a great number of the poor are only temporarily below the poverty line, from loss of job or estate. In short, I'd encourage you to have some sympathy for the homeless and poor because not every one of them chose that fate.