Religions > Bible > Re: Bush Terror Regime Starves & Terrorizes Americans Too ...Not Just Iraqis...
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jerry Okamura" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2006 12:04:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Bush Terror Regime Starves & Terrorizes Americans Too ...Not Just Iraqis... |
SOULUTION, GET AN EDUCATION.... DON'T HAVE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM....
DON'T HAVE CHILDREN YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE...LIVE WHERE YOU CAN AFFORD TO
LIVE..... ALL OF THESE STEPS YOU CAN TAKE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE
HOMELESS....IT IS ALL A MATTER OF "CHOICE"....
"Möbius Pretzel" <Mobius_r_Pretzel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166482533.765452.31750@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
More Americans hungry, homeless in 2006
12/19/06
WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters)
More Americans went homeless and hungry in 2006 than the year before
and children made up almost a quarter of those in emergency shelters,
said a report released on Thursday by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14462540.htm
---
But Hey! Halliburton & U.S. Defense Corps. are cats as fat as Trump &
Bill Gates!
(no WMDs or Universal Health Care yet...especially if you're a limbless
Oil Nazi)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Terror Regime Starves & Terrorizes Americans Too ...Not Just IraqisThere is a long history of blaming the poor for being poor and downplaying other possible sources of inequality arising from differences in power, social position, institutio |
19 Dec 2006 12:36:15 PM |
|
|
fucking nazi twit wrote:
SOULUTION, GET AN EDUCATION.... DON'T HAVE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM....
DON'T HAVE CHILDREN YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE...LIVE WHERE YOU CAN AFFORD TO
LIVE..... ALL OF THESE STEPS YOU CAN TAKE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE
HOMELESS....IT IS ALL A MATTER OF "CHOICE"....
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/blaming_the_poo.html
Economist's View
October 21, 2006
Blaming the Poor for Their Poverty
Recent news that the U.S. population has surpassed 300 million along
with the discussions of welfare policy associated with the ten year
anniversary of welfare reform legislation brings up thoughts of Thomas
Malthus. In Malthus' famous population theory, population grows
geometrically while food supply increases at the slower arithmetic
rate. Because of this, the size of the population will eventually
exceed the available food supply necessary to support it.
Malthus believes there are two solutions to the inevitable
overpopulation problem. First, there are preventive checks on
population which reduce the birth rate. Preventive checks consist of
moral restraint such as abstinence which Malthus believes to be
virtuous, and vice such as prostitution and birth control which is not.
Second, there are positive checks on the population that increase the
death rate - famine, misery, plague, and war - which, in Malthus' view,
are unavoidable natural laws. They are unfortunate, but necessary to
limit population. In his view, these positive checks represent
punishment for those who are unable to limit population growth through
moral restraint.
Malthus does not believe that positive checks can be avoided. If they
are, then people will starve for lack of food. Thus, if we abhor
starvation, we are foolish to try and prevent the positive checks to
population:
It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in
the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by
it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest
shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would
be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily
perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons.
.... To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of
foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature
in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent
visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage
the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead
of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary
habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more
people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the
country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and
particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome
situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for
ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who
have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes
for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and
similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably
every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely
starved. [source]
Where does this thinking lead? To the idea that there must be no
government relief for the poor:
A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get
subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the
society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest
portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At
nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him
to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not
work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up
and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the
same favour. ... The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the
plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness
of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in
every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who
are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been
taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in
counter-acting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the
great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all guests should have
plenty, and knowing she could not provide for unlimited numbers,
humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full.
[source]
This statement was tempered in later editions of the Essay, but the
message that helping the poor would only serve to increase their
numbers and hence increase aggregate misery remained. The result of
this was the Poor Law Amendment of 1834. From Brue:
Some of Malthus's ideas were adopted in the harsh Poor Law Amendment of
1834. The law abolished all relief for able-bodied people outside
workhouses. A man applying for relief had to pawn all his possessions
and then enter a workhouse before assistance was granted; his wife and
children either entered a workhouse or were sent to work in the cotton
mills. In either case the family was broken up and treated harshly in
order to discourage it from becoming a public charge. The work house
was invested with a social stigma, and entering it imposed high
psychological costs. The law aimed at making public assistance so
unbearable that most people would rather starve quietly than submit to
its indignities. This system was to be the basis of English poor law
policy until early in the twentieth century. Malthus, who died four
months after the Poor Law Amendment was passed, must have regarded it
as a vindication of his idea that there is not room enough at nature's
feast for every one.
Ultimately, in Malthus view, the difference between the rich and the
poor comes down to a difference in moral character. It is an attempt to
convince us that poverty is inevitable, that it is the consequences of
poor choices and the moral inferiority of the poor, and that there is
little that can be done about it.
There is a long history of blaming the poor for being poor and
downplaying other possible sources of inequality arising from
differences in power, social position, institutional structure, and so
on, followed by an argument that attempts to help the poor only serve
to increase the incentive for immoral behavior. Increasingly, we appear
to be heading down this road again. But before we do, we should
remember where it leads.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Contrary to Bush, the war on terror will NEVER be won!
The Motive Of Murder, Terror And Domination Is NOT Political - {HRI 20050803-V3.1}
Re: Happy 'Thanksgiving for Committing Genocide, Terror & TortureAgainst the Native American People, So We Can Steal Their Land' Day!
Bio-TERROR in America: Aerosols for HARM and Torture!
Bush Puts Catholic High Schhol Group as "Terror Watch" List
Re: How to look at the war on terror
Re: How to look at the war on terror
The Motive Of Murder, Terror And Domination Is NOT Political - {HRI 20050803-V3.2} - (Version 3.2 on 18 September 2005)
| Republicans disappointed: Politicizing terror ain't working.
Re: How to look at the war on terror
Re: Judaism is Ultimate Blasphemy, Wildest Bestiality, Global Fascism, Social Sodomism, Highest Crime, Real Cause of all wars without and terror within
Re: How to look at the war on terror
BUSH INSISTS IRAN BIGGEST TERROR SPONSOR
Re: How to look at the war on terror
Re: The Jews Are the Curse of humanity and the Cause of all wars and terror
|
|
|
