News Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[russ_watters]

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year.
This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries.

Yes, I know - I was responding to others who are turning this into yet another bash-the-US thread.

The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year.

Actually, since rise is less than last year, the conclusion that must be drawn is that the economy is pulling out of the low end of the cycle. That's simple math.

 

[russ_watters]

No russ. its not envy, i will sayit again, us tend to impose it's economic policies on the rest of the world,and it's not only becouse i heard people like you say the us it the best, it's becouse we are constantly forced into folowing the american model, which for more than 50 years couldn't drop it's poverty rate below 11%
(I was being sarcastic when i sayd US is the best country. It's just what they tell us in Argentina mass media, Controled by US corporations..)

That doesn't make any sense. The US poverty rate is 12%. The Argentinan poverty rate is 50%. Doesn't that make it self-evident that changing Argentina's economy to be more similar to the US's would improve things?

This has nothing to do with imposing our policies (again, that's your emotional reaction and its irrelevant to the situation here) - based on the fact that our system is working better than yours, you should choose to adopt a system more like ours.

 

[russ_watters]

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html

 

[outsider]

The real solution, there should not be poors, it's a flaw of the capitalism system...

I agree with you, but you really have to drop this argument because it will not change anything... the labels of communism, socialism and capitalism are meaningless to the underlining effects. Let's face it, there is no perfect system.

 

[outsider]

That doesn't make any sense. The US poverty rate is 12%. The Argentinan poverty rate is 50%. Doesn't that make it self-evident that changing Argentina's economy to be more similar to the US's would improve things?

This has nothing to do with imposing our policies (again, that's your emotional reaction and its irrelevant to the situation here) - based on the fact that our system is working better than yours, you should choose to adopt a system more like ours.

Agreed that Burnsys's opinion was more emotional...

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

 

[Manchot]

In that case, you may be standing much further to the left than you think. Have you taken a political stance quiz recently?

At your behest, I just now took the quiz at Political Compass. I came out smack dab in the middle on the economic axis, and slightly towards the libertarian side of the social axis. So, I think the better question is whether you've taken a political stance quiz recently.

 

[edward]

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

Illegal aliens are hard if not impossible to count. If they were included in the percentage, it would skyrocket.

At current rate of border crossings
By 2010, 14% of total U.S. population will be illegal aliens!

59% of illegal immigrants live in or near poverty.
Illegal immigrants have illiteracy rate 2½ times greater than U.S. citizens.

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/header/immigrants.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Agreed that Burnsys's opinion was more emotional...

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Not to mention if the rest of the world adopted our system and behaved in the same way, the human race would consume the world in one lifetime. Sounds a little selfish to me.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, I know - I was responding to others who are turning this into yet another bash-the-US thread

Sadly Bush represents America. As long as he is president, some of the Bush bashing will rub off.

 

[SOS2008]

Also, I don't mean to suggest that this percentage is an exaggeration, but there are people being counted that are not living impoverished lives. My sister, for example, is a single mother (unmarried, I should say, as the father is still around) who does not make enough to exceed the poverty level. Although she lives with my parents and they basically raise her kid while she works and goes to school, she reports herself as independent in order to receive benefits. She and her daughter are counted in these poverty statistics, but no reasonable person would say that either lives in poverty.

So your sister is fortunate enough to enjoy a form of a "social net." But in my mind your sister is still a poverty statistic that others are compensating for, maybe at a decreased cost of living themselves, but neither showing up in the numbers. The sad thing is your sister is not able to provide for herself, and my guess is she is depressed about this. Therefore the problem remains unresolved.

The same goes with unemployment. Many are not counted because many have taken early retirement (probably the last generation that will have the option), some have spouses that have gone back to work, others have been surviving okay because of the equity in their homes, etc. (one friend is moving back with her ex-boyfriend in part because she is "tired of struggling" economically). These things are artificially propping-up the economic indicators.

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year. This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries. The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year. This suggests a change of policy may be in order to reverse the trend. As a change of economic policy in some obscure African state will have zero effect on US incomes it is hard to see why some posters are so keen to pull them into the discussion.

Agreed. And yes, prior economic measures can have delayed affects, but for the most part the economy in the U.S. is not a large boat that turns slowly, but rather it responds fairly quickly to policies (e.g., taxes, deficit spending on wars, interest rates...), events (9-11, energy crisis, hurricanes...) so I believe each president is very responsible for the 'state of the nation' during their term.

Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Americans have less leisure time compared to most other first-world countries (I believe Japan is the one exception). Americans are also slaves to material things/technology, when the original intent was for material things/technology to serve them.

 

[loseyourname]

So your sister is fortunate enough to enjoy a form of a "social net." But in my mind your sister is still a poverty statistic that others are compensating for, maybe at a decreased cost of living themselves, but neither showing up in the numbers. The sad thing is your sister is not able to provide for herself, and my guess is she is depressed about this. Therefore the problem remains unresolved.

To be honest, she's always had mental problems, since as long as I can remember. It isn't that the inability to provide for herself is causing the problems; in fact, it may be the other way around. A big part of it is that she is taking classes, though, in an attempt to eventually get a degree. If she worked full-time, she'd make more than enough to pull herself above the poverty level, as her hourly wage is actually pretty good, somewhere around $13 an hour or so. It's just that she is only able to work sparingly because of her other obligations, plus the fact that she's almost better off receiving food stamps and getting babysitter money from the state for our mother, at least until she has completed her schooling.

I'm actually in a similar situation. I'm technically considered to be living in poverty as I make absolutely zero income, and am my own household. However, the reason I do this is because it is to my benefit as a student. The less income I earn, the more financial aid I get.

 

[loseyourname]

Interesting. I read the link and found it is rather a simple measure of poverty. I suppose it is better to keep it simple, but that means it doesn't reflect the difference in regional cost of living.

For instance, a family living in many cities would spend more than $12,000 a year for shelter alone.

That's a very good point. In fact, it actually runs both ways. $12,000 a year is half a year's rent in San Francisco, but it'll pay for rent and food easily in West Virginia. That is often the problem with statistics; they are never specific enough and quite often err in both directions. I guess the hope is that the two pulls balance themselves to give a relatively accurate view.

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They can't be counted for purposes of congressional apportionment unless they actually fill out a questionnaire. The enumerators do make an attempt to question homeless people they find in their zones, but it isn't easy. This is mostly a problem for for apportionment alone, though. In fact, the bigger problem for apportionment is actually illegals, as well as legal immigrants who don't speak English. They almost never fill out the questionnaires, even when the enumerators find them, and so states like Texas and California with large immigrant populations are undercounted and hence underrepresented in Congress. For all other purposes, however, the bureau is allowed to use sampling techniques that are thought to be fairly accurate, so they are counted (albeit in an indirect way) in the poverty statistics.

 

[russ_watters]

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Fair enough, but Burnsys was complianing about the poverty rate in Argentina, implying that he desires a lower one. Yes, there are plenty of hippies living gatherer-gatherer lives in national parks (they generally last about a week ), but I don't think Burnsys is leaning in that direction.

At your behest, I just now took the quiz at Political Compass. I came out smack dab in the middle on the economic axis, and slightly towards the libertarian side of the social axis. So, I think the better question is whether you've taken a political stance quiz recently.

I have - do a search for one of the threads on the subject (it may be 6 months since the last was active). I'm slightly more conservative economically, but also libertarian, socially. Are you registered to a political party?

Illegal aliens are hard if not impossible to count. If they were included in the percentage, it would skyrocket.

Since they are here illegally, I don't consider their presence relevant to such data.

Not to mention if the rest of the world adopted our system and behaved in the same way, the human race would consume the world in one lifetime.

As we've seen in the past with the oil crisis of the '70s, capitalism is self-correcting: when resources start to become scarce, we'll adjust how our system works to compensate. Other systems (such as Soviet Communism and Middle-East despotism) do not do that - they suck their resources dry and run themselves into the ground.

And yes, prior economic measures can have delayed affects, but for the most part the economy in the U.S. is not a large boat that turns slowly, but rather it responds fairly quickly to policies (e.g., taxes, deficit spending on wars, interest rates...), events (9-11, energy crisis, hurricanes...) so I believe each president is very responsible for the 'state of the nation' during their term.

I think you are confusing short term fluctuations with long term trends. Things like hurricanes and 9/11 don't don't affect much more than the quarter they occur in and long-term trends take several years to manifest. The economic cycle itself is on the order of 8-15 years and generally has a mind of its own. The most a government (or event) can do is make small changes in trends or cause temporary fluctuations.

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2005/0509/100.html in particular take years to change the structure of the economy, as people need to buy a new car to get better fuel economy.

Your opinion is not the prevailing view among economists - the economy is far more robust and has much more inertia than you think.

 

[Skyhunter]

As we've seen in the past with the oil crisis of the '70s, capitalism is self-correcting: when resources start to become scarce, we'll adjust how our system works to compensate. Other systems (such as Soviet Communism and Middle-East despotism) do not do that - they suck their resources dry and run themselves into the ground.

I don't follow your argument here.

The oil crisis of the 70's was created by OPEC for political reasons. Carter set us on the path to energy independence. Reagan reversed that path. Now we are back to where we were 30 years ago. Sometimes it behooves one to have a little forethought.

Global warming is causing stronger hurricanes. Are we going to deny it until it becomes economically feasible to not?

I agree that the market is self correcting, however the world is not the same as it was and I would argue that we need to start considering the next evolution in human society now, and stop denying that there is a problem with modern capitalism.

 

[Manchot]

I have - do a search for one of the threads on the subject (it may be 6 months since the last was active). I'm slightly more conservative economically, but also libertarian, socially. Are you registered to a political party?

I'm not registered with any party, although a certain president brings out the Democrat in me.

 

[SOS2008]

I think you are confusing short term fluctuations with long term trends. Things like hurricanes and 9/11 don't don't affect much more than the quarter they occur in and long-term trends take several years to manifest. The economic cycle itself is on the order of 8-15 years and generally has a mind of its own. The most a government (or event) can do is make small changes in trends or cause temporary fluctuations. Your opinion is not the prevailing view among economists - the economy is far more robust and has much more inertia than you think.

Basically this is what I said, that there are long-term and short-term trends. I disagree that events such as 9-11 only affected a quarter. We are still seeing the effects in many ways. Do you have evidence of this, or that the economic cycle has a mind of its own?

Otherwise, I would say people are robust per instincts to survive (in innovative ways), but it is despite the economic conditions created by idiots like Bush & Co. So let's give credit where it is due, let's differentiate between survive and thrive, and acknowledge that the economy has become artificially propped/manipulated, particularly since we went off the gold standard.

 

[Skyhunter]

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html

I just heard a statistic on the radio that 1 in 4 homeless men are veterans. Maybe that "support the troops" should be more than a magnetic ribbon on the back of an SUV.

http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6601

 

[outsider]

I just heard a statistic on the radio that 1 in 4 homeless men are veterans. Maybe that "support the troops" should be more than a magnetic ribbon on the back of an SUV.

http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6601

this is a truly sad statistic... wtf! and some of these people also sustained permanent psyc illnesses... proof of how war is not a good program.

 

[Skyhunter]

Otherwise, I would say people are robust per instincts to survive (in innovative ways), but it is despite the economic conditions created by idiots like Bush & Co. So let's give credit where it is due, let's differentiate between survive and thrive, and acknowledge that the economy has become artificially propped/manipulated, particularly since we went off the gold standard.

I second that assesment.

 

[Astronuc]

Life in the Bottom 80 Percent - NY Times Editorial - Sep 1, 2005

Economic growth isn't what it used to be. In 2004, the economy grew a solid 3.8 percent. But for the fifth straight year, median household income was basically flat, at $44,389 in 2004, the Census Bureau said Tuesday. That's the longest stretch of income stagnation on record.

Economic growth was also no elixir for the 800,000 additional workers who found themselves without health insurance in 2004. Were it not for increased coverage by military insurance and Medicaid, the ranks of the uninsured - now 45.8 million - would be even larger. And 1.1 million more people fell into poverty in 2004, bringing the ranks of poor Americans to 37 million.

When President Bush talks about the economy, he invariably boasts about good economic growth. But he doesn't acknowledge what is apparent from the census figures: as the very rich get even richer, their gains can mask the stagnation and deterioration at less lofty income levels.

This week's census report showed that income inequality was near all-time highs in 2004, with 50.1 percent of income going to the top 20 percent of households. And additional census data obtained by the Economic Policy Institute show that only the top 5 percent of households experienced real income gains in 2004. Incomes for the other 95 percent of households were flat or falling.

Income inequality is an economic and social ill, but the administration and the Congressional majority don't seem to recognize that. When Congress returns from its monthlong summer vacation next week, two of the leadership's top priorities include renewing the push to repeal the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest of families, and extending the tax cuts for investment income, which flow largely to the richest Americans. At the other end of the spectrum, lawmakers have stubbornly refused to raise the minimum wage: $5.15 an hour since 1997. They will also be taking up proposals for deep budget cuts in programs that ameliorate income inequality, like Medicaid, food stamps and federal student loans.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

With the deficits about to take off again thanks to Katrina, and on top of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, president Bush and Congress are planning cuts to Medicaid and repealing the estate tax.

And today an article that mentions, the increase in cost of living is exceeding the increase in wages.

 

[alexandra]

Life in the Bottom 80 Percent - NY Times Editorial - Sep 1, 2005



With the deficits about to take off again thanks to Katrina, and on top of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, president Bush and Congress are planning cuts to Medicaid and repealing the estate tax.

And today an article that mentions, the increase in cost of living is exceeding the increase in wages.

I, for one, am not in the least surprised by this news. This was the agenda from the start. This is what all those who voted Republican voted for (but did they all know it?).

 

[Skyhunter]

I, for one, am not in the least surprised by this news. This was the agenda from the start. This is what all those who voted Republican voted for (but did they all know it?).

I don't think that the majority of them did, because the majority of them are not reaping any benefits. Katrina has shown the world the ugly side of poverty in America, it is no longer so easy to turn a blind eye to the plight of the poor working class anymore.

This disaster will do more to change the political climate in this country than most people realize.

 

[Skyhunter]

A 0.2% increase in poverty sounds a lot better than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.

Exactly: rather than reporting nothing because they have nothing to report, the media uses a big number to say something meaningless, but sound ominous. That's how the media works! And a great many people... ...accept it without thinking about what it actually means.

Lemme ask you this: had it not said something ominous, would you have looked for holes in the story? I get the feeling that a lot of people here only question stories when they say things they don't want to hear.

You completely missed my point. Which is the point.

You are talking about numbers. 1.1 million sounds like a lot, but if you realize it is only 2 tenths of one percent, then it is no big deal.

I am talking about people. Look at your child, your wife, your mother, your father, a friend, or even a complete stranger.

What is the value of their life?

Think about your own life and what it means to you.

Now think about living in poverty, not being able to pay bills, wash clothes, eat right, or even be able to afford bus fare. Multiply that by 1.1 million and it is a significant story.

This is the most obvious difference I find between progressive and conservative bloggers. Progressives and liberals tend to concern themselves with the quality of human lives. Conservatives also concren themselves with the quality of human life but selfishly it is just their own life and the lives of the people close to them.

When we improve the lives of everyone we improve our own. I took a bunch of alcoholics and drug addicts and turned them into a top rate construction crew. Their lives and the lives of their families improved. And so did mine. I wasn't able to cure their alcoholism or drug addiction, but more than one of them that I employed were able to bring themselves out of the desperate life they had been living and become productive citizens. The conservative view of they are lazy and deserve what they get is harmful not only to those that are not able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but also harmful to the uncaring conservative, because eventually we reap what we sow.

 

[SOS2008]

I, for one, am not in the least surprised by this news. This was the agenda from the start. This is what all those who voted Republican voted for (but did they all know it?).

One person I know admitted he voted for Bush because of the war, figuring Roe v. Wade could never be overturned. Now he's not so sure. Just before the Terri Schiavo intervention, I mentioned Frist to a Republican friend of mine. She didn't know who Frist was. And I said, well you should because he would like to put an end to your fornication and weed smoking and who know what else, and plans to run in 2008. I haven't heard a peep from her since Terri Schiavo. Then there's the young man who thinks Clinton invaded Iraq, and he has a brother currently serving in Korea. These are folks who voted Republican.

 

[Astronuc]

One person I know admitted he voted for Bush because of the war, figuring Roe v. Wade could never be overturned. Now he's not so sure. Just before the Terri Schiavo intervention, I mentioned Frist to a Republican friend of mine. She didn't know who Frist was. And I said, well you should because he would like to put an end to your fornication and weed smoking and who know what else, and plans to run in 2008. I haven't heard a peep from her since Terri Schiavo. Then there's the young man who thinks Clinton invaded Iraq, and he has a brother currently serving in Korea. These are folks who voted Republican.

A person at the office where I work voted for Bush because Bush looked better than Kerry! The same person is waiting for the apocalypse, of which hurricane Katrina is just a preliminary.

Oh it's so nice to have an informed and intelligent electorate.

 

[russ_watters]

You completely missed my point. Which is the point.

You are talking about numbers. 1.1 million sounds like a lot, but if you realize it is only 2 tenths of one percent, then it is no big deal.

No, I see what you are driving at - its the same logic by which the articles are written that trumpet these misused statistics. And this is how they do it:

I am talking about people. Look at your child, your wife, your mother, your father, a friend, or even a complete stranger.

What is the value of their life?

Think about your own life and what it means to you.

Individuals. That's how people manipulate statistics (or, rather, ignore the statistics altogether). If he number of people living in poverty increased by 100, you could say exactly the same thing and it would be no more or less meaningless than what you just said. Trying to apply statistics to individuals is about the worst way you can misuse statistics.

Now think about living in poverty, not being able to pay bills, wash clothes, eat right, or even be able to afford bus fare. Multiply that by 1.1 million and it is a significant story.

Here's another story for you: Imagine a guy who makes slightly more than the povery line, not getting a raise this year and having another child. Now he's below the poverty line. That is how these statistics look on the individual level, in reality. It isn't people who suddenly drop from upper-middle class into being homeless on the street - the real difference for those 1.1 million people is miniscule.

This is the most obvious difference I find between progressive and conservative bloggers. Progressives and liberals tend to concern themselves with the quality of human lives. Conservatives also concren themselves with the quality of human life but selfishly it is just their own life and the lives of the people close to them.

No, that's not it at all. Liberals try to personalize statistics in order to add emotional content to override what the statistics actually say, conservatives analyze the statistics themselves.

The phrase "bleeding heart liberal" comes from the liberal tendency to try to personalize everything, which only succeeds in removing any possibility for objective analysis.

The conservative view of they are lazy and deserve what they get is harmful not only to those that are not able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but also harmful to the uncaring conservative, because eventually we reap what we sow.

Personal responsibility is a double-edged sword. I suspect you weren't running a charity there - people actually had to work, otherwise you wouldn't have kept employing them. Or did you really use the hard work of some people to subsidize the unsatisfactory performance of others?

In real life, some people don't try and those people deserve failure. The liberal idealist ideology (another thread...) that seems to think that everyone should be able to succeed (and if they don't on their own, we should hand it to them) is just a rebagged version of the communist utopia fallacy.

Here's an irony for you to ponder: the military is the biggest social welfare program this country has - yet the military breeds conservatives. How is that possible?

 

[SOS2008]

Here's an irony for you to ponder: the military is the biggest social welfare program this country has - yet the military breeds conservatives. How is that possible?

Because they often come from poor families and have very little if any education, and then they are exposed to boot camp, which uses brainwashing techniques?

Come on, I don't see where anyone is advocating hand-outs. All that is being said is that 1.1 million more people have fallen into poverty, and this should be of concern.

 

[Skyhunter]

No, I see what you are driving at - its the same logic by which the articles are written that trumpet these misused statistics. And this is how they do it: Individuals. That's how people manipulate statistics (or, rather, ignore the statistics altogether). If he number of people living in poverty increased by 100, you could say exactly the same thing and it would be no more or less meaningless than what you just said.

100 more people in poverty is not nearly as big a problem as 1.1 million.

Trying to apply statistics to individuals is about the worst way you can misuse statistics. Here's another story for you: Imagine a guy who makes slightly more than the povery line, not getting a raise this year and having another child. Now he's below the poverty line. That is how these statistics look on the individual level, in reality.

So when his other kids don't get new shoes for school, and have to suffer the teasing by other children that doesn't make a difference?

It isn't people who suddenly drop from upper-middle class into being homeless on the street - the real difference for those 1.1 million people is miniscule. No, that's not it at all. Liberals try to personalize statistics in order to add emotional content to override what the statistics actually say, conservatives analyze the statistics themselves.

When you are already on the brink minuscule differences are huge.

So how many more millions are on the brink?

The phrase "bleeding heart liberal" comes from the liberal tendency to try to personalize everything, which only succeeds in removing any possibility for objective analysis. Personal responsibility is a double-edged sword. I suspect you weren't running a charity there - people actually had to work, otherwise you wouldn't have kept employing them. Or did you really use the hard work of some people to subsidize the unsatisfactory performance of others?

No the term "bleeding heart liberal" comes from caring for ones fellow humans. It comes from feeling compassion for the poor, as opposed to disdain.

No I wasn't running a charity, I do enough charity work to know the difference. I gave them an opportunity and treated them with respect. I went through a lot of workers, some I gave second and third chances. I did have a fairly good success rate. I was able to get superior production from laborers that I was told were worthless by their previous employers. I took ignorant grunts and turned them into top notch carpenters. Many of the guys who worked for me went on to run their own construction business or become foreman for larger companies. My point was that I cared about the people working for me. Some of them took advantage. Many mistook kindness for weakness, and I had to dis-illusion them with "extreme prejudice", but most responded very well to me.

In real life, some people don't try and those people deserve failure. The liberal idealist ideology (another thread...) that seems to think that everyone should be able to succeed (and if they don't on their own, we should hand it to them) is just a rebagged version of the communist utopia fallacy.

But all who are poor or failures are not necessarily those who do not try. Most know nothing else.

Here's an irony for you to ponder: the military is the biggest social welfare program this country has - yet the military breeds conservatives. How is that possible?

The military propaganda breeds conservatives, why do you think Armed Forces Radio has the Rush Limbaugh Show but Not a liberal counter?

Conservatives are also far more likely to join the military. Unless they are a neo-conservative. Neo-conservatives would rather the ignorant people that they control with flag waving and fear mongering fight and die in the wars they start.

I would not consider a person willing to sacrifice their life for their country someone looking for handouts!

If you want to understand the difference look up the definitions of the words:

Liberal=generous

Conservative=stingy

 

[Smurf]

To put the number in comparison, it's the same number of jobs in Canada's biggest industry, forestry.

 

[SOS2008]

Looks like Katrina is making people address the rising rate of poverty - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287641/

Newsweek
Sept. 19, 2005 issue -

It takes a hurricane. It takes a catastrophe like Katrina to strip away the old evasions, hypocrisies and not-so-benign neglect. It takes the sight of the United States with a big black eye—visible around the world—to help the rest of us begin to see again. For the moment, at least, Americans are ready to fix their restless gaze on enduring problems of poverty, race and class that have escaped their attention. Does this mean a new war on poverty? No, especially with Katrina's gargantuan price tag. But this disaster may offer a chance to start a skirmish, or at least make Washington think harder about why part of the richest country on Earth looks like the Third World.

Here, here!

 

[russ_watters]

On request:

I find this a fascinating statement by you Russ. 10% of Korea's population is about 2 million people. It's interesting that you consider their deaths the act of a sociopath but that 1.1 million people falling into poverty as a mere statistic, or miniscule.

Well, there is a pretty fundamental difference between slipping into poverty and dying. Those people who are poor in the US are in no danger of starvation. If 1.1 million people died of starvation in the US, I'd buy a gun and drive to Washington.

I think if killing people alone is enough to call a person a sociopath wouldn't a great deal of America's past presidents be just as bad?

Huh? Are you talking about war? There is also a pretty fundamental difference between war and murder or mass famine due to spectacular incompetence. When people were starving to death, Kim Il's basic public statement was that his army would be well-fed. He didn't ask for help - he didn't even care - he just wanted to do whatever was necessary to remain in power.

Frankly, I consider is a psychological problem common to liberals to fail to make such distinctions. If any negative is treated as a disaster, a true comprehension for the severity of problems is lost. Now part of that is just politicking, but I think it's more than that and it fits with my thesis that the modern liberal ideology is based, fundamentally, on complaining.

 

[russ_watters]

Because they often come from poor families and have very little if any education, and then they are exposed to boot camp, which uses brainwashing techniques?

No, its because the military takes people who come from poor families and have very little if any education and gives them the opportunity and the challenge to succeed. That's a conservative approach and it works and people who would ordinarily be liberal based on their background see it. I saw both spectacular success and spectacular failure in the Navy.

My favorite story is of my navigator. He was a poor, small (that's relevant), black kid from East St. Louis - about as desperate of a starting situation as you can imagine. Being small, he would respond to bullies by lighting them on fire, since he was pretty much useless in a fight. After one nasty incident involving guns, gangs, fire, and drugs (not sure of all the details), he was arrested and given the classic "military or jail" choice. He chose the military and enlisted in the navy. Once out of that environment, he quickly showed his intelligence and value and was accepted to OCS before even leaving boot camp. The Navy sent him to college and now he's a 35 year old Lieutenant (may be a LCDR by now) with a promising career and a pretty, lawyer wife.

Come on, I don't see where anyone is advocating hand-outs. All that is being said is that 1.1 million more people have fallen into poverty, and this should be of concern.

Right - the "concern" implies that a course of action should be taken to correct it. The typical liberal course of action to reduce poverty is wealth redistibution.

 

[Anttech]

I'd buy a gun and drive to Washington.

you are now on the NSA hit list

 

[russ_watters]

100 more people in poverty is not nearly as big a problem as 1.1 million.

That's true, but your anecdote doesn't make that distinction. That's the point: anecdotes are not a true representation of what is going on.

The first time I went to the Holocaust Museum about 10 years ago, they had a quote on the wall from Stalin where he said "1 death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic." That quote has several meanings and is relevant to the museum because when you enter, they give you a little card with the biography of a specific Holocaust vicitm on it. You follow that person's journey through the Holocaust as you go through the museum. By making you focus on an individual, the museum is able to extract the maximum possible emotional response - and that's how liberals treat statistics such as these poverty statistics. It's a propaganda technique, and that's probably the reason the quote no longer appears in the museum. But while knowing the name of one victim is a tear-jerker, it doesn't tell you the magnitude of what really happened.

So when his other kids don't get new shoes for school, and have to suffer the teasing by other children that doesn't make a difference?

Jeez, it doesn't stop, does it? Ok, fine: no, his kids did get new shoes because the father chose not to buy himself a new coat and went to work cold every day. See how easy it is to play with made-up anecdotes? They are useless.

I would not consider a person willing to sacrifice their life for their country someone looking for handouts!

A great many people join the military for precisely that reason.

That doesn't concern me though - the military is a great equalizer and the bottom line is that people have an equal chance to prove themselves regardless of their reasons for being there.

If you want to understand the difference look up the definitions of the words:

Liberal=generous

Conservative=stingy

Close, but not quite:

Liberal=Generous with money that isn't theirs.
Conservative=Won't steal your hard-earned money.

The military propaganda breeds conservatives.

Not quite. The military structure breeds conservatives. The difference? The military is set up to start with absolute equality at a zero-point and reward performance. That is a conservative philosophy. A military run on liberal philosophy would have no enlisted ranks, just paint-chipping Lieutenants making $30,000 a year.

The military does, of course, indoctrinate you into its system, so technically it could be considered propagada, except for the fact that everyone is there voluntarily. Regardless, the system works extrordinarily well and produces some spectacular successes such as the one I discribed in a previous post.

 

[Art]

The phrase "bleeding heart liberal" comes from the liberal tendency to try to personalize everything, which only succeeds in removing any possibility for objective analysis.

Like this you mean?

My favorite story is of my navigator. He was a poor, small (that's relevant), black kid from East St. Louis - about as desperate of a starting situation as you can imagine. Being small, he would respond to bullies by lighting them on fire, since he was pretty much useless in a fight. After one nasty incident involving guns, gangs, fire, and drugs (not sure of all the details), he was arrested and given the classic "military or jail" choice. He chose the military and enlisted in the navy. Once out of that environment, he quickly showed his intelligence and value and was accepted to OCS before even leaving boot camp. The Navy sent him to college and now he's a 35 year old Lieutenant (may be a LCDR by now) with a promising career and a pretty, lawyer wife.

I wonder, statistically that is, how many poor black kids from East St. Louis end up with this sort of fairytale ending??

 

[sid_galt]

The military does, of course, indoctrinate you into its system, so technically it could be considered propagada

It cannot be. Propaganda by the dictionary definition specifically refers to the dissemination of ideas i.e. ideas related to a specific ideology. The military has no particulary ideology it adheres to (it's not liberal or conservative) and therefore cannot be technically considered a propaganda machine.

Non technically, propaganda, IMO refers to an ideology which is disseminated without valid reasons being offered for the validity of the ideology. E.g. the terrorists which advocate the destruction of US offer no valid reasons for destroying it and thus there rhetoric can be legitimately considered propaganda.

 

[sid_galt]

BTW, if anyone wants to eliminate poverty, the only way to do it is through a system based on individual rights i.e. Capitalism. Anything else will only increase poverty. The proof is in history.

 

[Art]

BTW, if anyone wants to eliminate poverty, the only way to do it is through a system based on individual rights i.e. Capitalism. Anything else will only increase poverty. The proof is in history.

Such a simple idea; I'm surprised nobody has tried it

 

[Art]

It cannot be. Propaganda by the dictionary definition specifically refers to the dissemination of ideas i.e. ideas related to a specific ideology. The military has no particulary ideology it adheres to (it's not liberal or conservative) and therefore cannot be technically considered a propaganda machine.

Non technically, propaganda, IMO refers to an ideology which is disseminated without valid reasons being offered for the validity of the ideology. E.g. the terrorists which advocate the destruction of US offer no valid reasons for destroying it and thus there rhetoric can be legitimately considered propaganda.

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

 

[sid_galt]

My definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary. Although it is useful, the wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source on any subject as anyone can edit it.

 

[sid_galt]

Such a simple idea; I'm surprised nobody has tried it

The west came close in the 19th century hence the vast rise in prosperity in that century.

As for a modern example, Reagan and Thatcher relaxed the regulations on business, making US and UK more capitalist and bringing them out from the economic slump.

 

[Art]

The west came close in the 19th century hence the vast rise in prosperity in that century.

As for a modern example, Reagan and Thatcher relaxed the regulations on business, making US and UK more capitalist and bringing them out from the economic slump.

You are joking; aren't you? There was massive poverty in the 19th century. As just one of many, many examples of the effects of capitalism during the 19th century, in my own country Ireland, over 2 million died of starvation during a famine directly attributable to capitalism. In a country with a population of 8 million they were producing enough food to feed 12 million but the English landowners exported the food for sale abroad to maximise profits.

 

[Skyhunter]

- the military is a great equalizer and the bottom line is that people have an equal chance to prove themselves regardless of their reasons for being there.

True, and I like this idea.

So for the first time in their life for many who are poor, all of their basic self maintenance needs are met. Their time is structured and they have an opportunity in their life that until they enlisted they never had.

Liberal=Generous with money that isn't theirs.

Your opinion, not a definition.

Conservative=Won't steal your hard-earned money.

And Kenny Boy was what ideology?

But, that also leads nowhere.

My grandfather, a Sgt in WWII, shot in the chest during the "Battle of the Bulge", lifelong republican, explained these terms to me. I don't have a problem with conservative ideology at all. I have a problem with how it has been hi-jacked.

The military structure breeds conservatives. The difference? The military is set up to start with absolute equality at a zero-point and reward performance. That is a conservative philosophy. A military run on liberal philosophy would have no enlisted ranks, just paint-chipping Lieutenants making $30,000 a year.

It is a military philosophy, and it works in a military environment. You also have a rigid code of ethics and a system of rank. You cannot apply this to a free society.

The German society became incredibly efficient, creative, and productive under Hitler. I hope you are not suggesting that.

The military does, of course, indoctrinate you into its system, so technically it could be considered propaganda, except for the fact that everyone is there voluntarily. Regardless, the system works extraordinarily well and produces some spectacular successes such as the one I described in a previous post.

Considered propaganda?

Come on Russ, you know better than that.

So why does it work?

Not because of ideology, but because it creates an environment for people to succeed. Not in a material way, it provides an opportunity for people to grow personally.

I agree with most of what you say about a conservative philosophy. I believe we can take this basic premise of the military and apply it to society on the whole. But first society must provide all the essential infrastructure and support system to provide for the self maintenance needs of each individual.

As long as the attempt to structure the society, to provide for the self maintenance needs of all it's citizens is labeled Socialism or Communism, then society will remain as it is.

Somewhere in between generous and stingy, there is a balance.

 

[Art]

My definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary. Although it is useful, the wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source on any subject as anyone can edit it.

Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I get the impression?? you think propaganda is a negative term by your objection to it's use to describe the indoctrination used in the US armed forces, but it is not.

 

[sid_galt]

You are joking; aren't you? There was massive poverty in the 19th century.

Take it into context. Before the Industrial Revolution, what existed was kings and knights with feudal serfs underneath them who lived under the worst of the conditions.
Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution remarkably raised the standard of living and brought us to our current state of prosperity. But no matter how good, even they couldn't have lifted the whole world out of poverty immediately especially when various degrees of government control still existed.

As just one of many, many examples of the effects of capitalism during the 19th century, in my own country Ireland, over 2 million died of starvation during a famine directly attributable to capitalism. In a country with a population of 8 million they were producing enough food to feed 12 million but the English landowners exported the food for sale abroad to maximise profits.

Since I do not know of the specific circumstances in this case, I cannot comment on the situation. What I do know is that while Capitalism has made millions rich and brought billions out of poverty, its antithesis, communism has killed millions and a complete mixture of the two brought England and US's economy to a halt by the 70s.

 

[sid_galt]

I get the impression?? you think propaganda is a negative term by your objection to it's use to describe the indoctrination used in the US armed forces, but it is not.

The definition you posted specifically refers to propaganda as a dissemination of ideas to help or injure something or somebody. The military isn't an organization to disseminate ideas but training.

 

[sid_galt]

Art,
I have done some reading on the Irish famine.

From what I have read, the main cause of the famine was the extreme poverty of the Irish people due to the coming of the machine age.

However, after reading a bit more, IMO it was not the machine age which caused the poverty of the Irish people. After all, if a person in Britain could set up a factory, why couldn't a person in Ireland?

From what I have read, the extreme poverty of the Irish came about because they were left with very little land which was a direct consequence of the Penal Laws imposed by the British.

I wouldn't be so hasty in blaming capitalism for the Irish famine when it is likely that government intervention was much more to blame.

 

[SOS2008]

russ_watters: Liberal=Generous with money that isn't theirs.

Ooooh, so Bush is a liberal? His spending is becoming a record.

 

[Art]

Art,
I have done some reading on the Irish famine.

From what I have read, the main cause of the famine was the extreme poverty of the Irish people due to the coming of the machine age.

However, after reading a bit more, IMO it was not the machine age which caused the poverty of the Irish people. After all, if a person in Britain could set up a factory, why couldn't a person in Ireland?

Yes, It was a hanging offence to teach an Irish person to read and write never mind have one open a factory.

From what I have read, the extreme poverty of the Irish came about because they were left with very little land which was a direct consequence of the Penal Laws imposed by the British.

The penal laws barred Catholics from the army and navy, the law, commerce, and from every civic activity. No Catholic could vote, hold any office under the Crown, or purchase land, and Catholic estates were dismembered by an enactment directing that at the death of a Catholic owner his land was to be divided among all his sons, unless the eldest became a Protestant, when he would inherit the whole. Education was made almost impossible, since Catholics might not attend schools, nor keep schools, nor send their children to be educated abroad. The practice of the Catholic faith was proscribed; sinforming was encouraged as 'an honorable service' and priest-hunting treated as a sport.

Such were the main provisions of the Penal Code, described by Edmund Burke as 'a machine as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man'.

Yes and so the Irish in Ireland were tenant farmers for their English masters who during the famine years took the opportunity to evict the Irish from their small-holdings for non-payment of rent (rents which the landlords increased to make up for any shortfall they suffered from the effects of the potato blight;

When there was widespread criticism in the English newspapers over the evictions, Lord Broughman made a speech on March 23rd, 1846 in the House of Lords. He said: Undoubtedly it is the landlord's right to do as he pleases, and if he abstained he conferred a favor and was doing an act of kindness. If, on the other hand, he choose to stand on his right, the tenants must be taught by the strong arm of the law that they had no power to oppose or resist...property would be valueless and capital would no longer be invested in cultivation of the land if it were not acknowledged that it was the landlord's undoubted and most sacred right to deal with his property as he wished."

Even when tenants were evicted in the dead of winter and died of exposure, the British Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, "rejected the notion that house-destroying landlords were open to any criminal proceedings on the part of the government."

British Parliament passed a law reducing the notice given to people before they were evicted to 48 hours. The law also made it a misdemeanor to demolish a dwelling while the tenants were inside. As a grand gesture of goodwill, the law prohibited evictions on Christmas day and Good Friday.

On January 23rd, 1846, Mr. Todhunter, a member of the Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends wrote: "It is evident that some landlords, forgetful of the claims of humanity and regardless of the Public Welfare, are availing themselves of the present calamity to effect a wholesale clearance of their estates."

However Englands torture of Ireland long pre-dates the famine

In 1571 Queen Elizabeth ordered that no cloth or stuff made in Ireland could be exported, even to England, except by English men in Ireland. The act was amended in 1663 to prohibit the use of all foreign-going ships, except those that were built in England, mastered and three-fourths manned by English, and cleared from English ports. The return cargoes had to be unloaded in England. Ireland's shipbuilding industry was thus destroyed and her trade with the Continent wiped out.

TRADE WITH THE COLONIES
Ireland then began a lucrative trade with the Colonies. That was "cured" in 1670 by a new law which forbade Ireland to export to the colonies "anything except horses, servants, and victuals." England followed with a decree that no Colonial products could be landed in Ireland until they had first landed in England and paid all English rates and duties.

Ireland was forbidden to engage in trade with the colonies and plantations of the New World if it involved sugar, tobacco, cotton, wool, rice, and numerous other items. The only item left for Ireland to import was rum. The English wanted to help English rum makers in the West Indies at the expense of Irish farmers and distillers.

IRISH WOOL TRADE CURTAILED, THEN DESTROYED
When the Irish were forbidden to export their sheep, they began a thriving trade in wool. In 1634 The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Stafford, wrote to King Charles I: "All wisdom advises us to keep this (Irish) kingdom as much subordinate and dependent on England as possible; and, holding them from manufacture of wool (which unless otherwise directed, I shall by all means discourage), and then enforcing them to fetch their cloth from England, how can they depart from us without nakedness and beggary?"

In 1660 even the export of wool from Ireland to England was forbidden. Other English laws prohibited all exports of Irish wool in any form. In 1673, Sir William Temple advised that the Irish would act wisely by giving up the manufacture of wool even for home use, because "it tended to interfere prejudicially with the English woolen trade."

George II sent three warships and eight other armed vessels to cruise off the coast of Ireland to seize all vessels carrying woolens from Ireland. "So ended the fairest promise that Ireland had ever known of becoming a prosperous and a happy country."

LINEN TRADE REPRESSED
Irish linen manufacturing met with the same fate when the Irish were forbidden to export their product to all other countries except England. A thirty percent duty was levied in England, effectively prohibiting the trade. English manufacturers, on the other hand, were granted a bounty for all linen exports.

BEEF, PORK, BUTTER AND CHEESE
In 1665 Irish cattle were no longer welcome in England, so the Irish began killing them and exporting the meat. King Charles II declared that the importation of cattle, sheep, swine and beef from Ireland was henceforth a common nuisance, and forbidden. Pork and bacon were soon prohibited, followed by butter and cheese.

SILK AND TOBACCO
In the middle of the 18th century, Ireland began developing a silk weaving industry. Britain imposed a heavy duty on Irish silk, but British manufactured silk was admitted to Ireland duty-free. Ireland attempted to develop her tobacco industry, but that too was prohibited.

FISH
In 1819 England withdrew the subsidy for Irish fisheries and increased the subsidies to British fishermen - with the result that Ireland's possession of one of the longest coastlines in Europe, still left it with one of the most miserable fisheries.

GLASS
Late in the 18th century the Irish became known for their manufacture of glass. George II forbade the Irish to export glass to any country whatsoever under penalty of forfeiting ship, cargo and ten shillings per pound weight.

THE RESULT
By 1839, a French visitor to Ireland, Gustave de Beaumont, was able to write:

"In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland. To explain the social condition of such a country, it would be only necessary to recount its miseries and its sufferings; the history of the poor is the history of Ireland."

I wouldn't be so hasty in blaming capitalism for the Irish famine when it is likely that government intervention was much more to blame.

The Irish famine was a direct consequence of the British government's strict adherence to the principles of capitalism i.e. non-intervention to market forces. The food produced was sold to the highest bidders who unfortunately were not the Irish as they didn't have money to pay for it.

So as you can see capitalism is very definitely not the solution to poverty.

 

[sid_galt]

The Irish famine was a direct consequence of the British government's strict adherence to the principles of capitalism i.e. non-intervention to market forces. The food produced was sold to the highest bidders who unfortunately were not the Irish as they didn't have money to pay for it.

And why did the Irish not have money to pay for it? Because of early government intervention in the economy and the market which left the Irish unable to compete with the British

So as you can see capitalism is very definitely not the solution to poverty.

No as you can see, it was the government intervention in the markets which was to blame for the extreme poverty and the subsequent famine. If the British had left the Irish free to compete, they would not have fallen into such levels of poverty.