News Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[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.