| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2005 07:32:55 PM |
| Object: |
Welcome to the Third World America!! |
We have seen parts of America that appeared to be Third World in Louisiana,
we have seen a reaction from our government that rivals Third World
incompetence and now the numbers are beginning to bear it out.
---
Poverty Numbers Revisited
We've discussed national poverty numbers around these parts, and the
difficulty of pinning down a decent definition of "poverty" before, but I
think the Economic Policy Institute has the right way of measuring this
stuff here. They've drawn up a budget for families, figuring out how much it
would cost to purchase basic necessities-housing, transportation, food,
child care, health care, etc.-in various regions, and then looked to see how
many families make enough to meet those basic expenses.
Whereas the official poverty rate hovers around 12.7 percent, and continues
to rise, EPI found that the percentage of families that couldn't meet the
basic budget was 29.7 percent. In other words, nearly a third of all
American family don't make enough to buy basic necessities. (One note: EPI
doesn't seem to have included non-cash benefits, such as food stamps, in
their calculation of income.)
As it turns out, the Midwest had the "smallest" problem in this regard, with
a still-shocking-but-relatively-low 23.4 percent of families unable to meet
the budget, as compared with over 30 percent in the Northeast, South, and
West, which may in part explain some of those "What's the matter with
Kansas?" mysteries. (In fact, California and New York, two of the most
liberal states nationally, had the biggest problems on this measure.)
Meanwhile, 42.5 percent of families who work less than full-time year-round
sit below the budget, but lest anyone think that simply getting a job will
solve everything (and that assumes that there are jobs to be had), 22.8
percent of those families working full-time, year-round still could not
afford basic necessities.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2005/09/poverty_numbers.html
--
The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million
last year (2003), while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million,
the Census Bureau reported Thursday (August 27, 2004).
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/26/census.poverty.ap/
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to the Third World America!! |
09 Sep 2005 08:30:50 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
We have seen parts of America that appeared to be Third World in Louisiana,
we have seen a reaction from our government that rivals Third World
incompetence and now the numbers are beginning to bear it out.
---
Try not to forget. Louisiana is overwhelmingly a Democrat state. Has
been for a hundred years. That should tell you a lot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tolo" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to the Third World America!! |
09 Sep 2005 08:51:08 PM |
|
|
"Werner Hetzner" wrote
Try not to forget. Louisiana is overwhelmingly a Democrat state. Has
been for a hundred years. That should tell you a lot.
Uhhhhh, no. Is Google broke tonight? You are very misinformed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to the Third World America!! |
10 Sep 2005 07:35:10 AM |
|
|
Tolo wrote:
"Werner Hetzner" wrote
Try not to forget. Louisiana is overwhelmingly a Democrat state. Has
been for a hundred years. That should tell you a lot.
Uhhhhh, no. Is Google broke tonight? You are very misinformed.
http://www.gcr1.com/der/la.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to the Third World America!! |
09 Sep 2005 08:45:27 PM |
|
|
"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:4322374B.4060405@mac.com...
Black Elk wrote:
We have seen parts of America that appeared to be Third World in
Louisiana, we have seen a reaction from our government that rivals Third
World incompetence and now the numbers are beginning to bear it out.
---
Try not to forget. Louisiana is overwhelmingly a Democrat state. Has been
for a hundred years. That should tell you a lot.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they voted for Bush didn't they? They have one
Republican senator and one Democratic senator don't they? Just because they
are supposedly Democratic means little if they're not providing good wages
and benefits with enough jobs. Healthcare and education are another
indicator of a healthy society, neither are provided to the poor in any
meaningful way.
On the other hand Massachusetts, a true Democratic state, has the highest
per capita income in the U.S. with one of the highest, if not highest level
of education per capita.
--
Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and
German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in
some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago, those
who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so
because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and
individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to
achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to the Third World America!! |
10 Sep 2005 09:50:47 AM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:4322374B.4060405@mac.com...
Black Elk wrote:
We have seen parts of America that appeared to be Third World in
Louisiana, we have seen a reaction from our government that rivals Third
World incompetence and now the numbers are beginning to bear it out.
---
Try not to forget. Louisiana is overwhelmingly a Democrat state. Has been
for a hundred years. That should tell you a lot.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they voted for Bush didn't they? They have one
Republican senator and one Democratic senator don't they? Just because they
are supposedly Democratic means little if they're not providing good wages
and benefits with enough jobs. Healthcare and education are another
indicator of a healthy society, neither are provided to the poor in any
meaningful way.
http://www.gcr1.com/der/la.htm
Who is 'they' in "they're not providing"?
---
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your
pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to
health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the
way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health
care. The "right" to an attorney means that the government cannot
prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some
slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care
means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own
guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
Gary Popkin,
NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml
---
On the other hand Massachusetts, a true Democratic state, has the highest
per capita income in the U.S. with one of the highest, if not highest level
of education per capita.
Glad you mentioned it. Sounds like NY. Like Massachusetts, NY is also
populated mostly by people who vote Democrat. They are generally
concentrated in cities. They have more of the things people don't want -
crime, bad schools, disinterested citizenry, dysfunctional government
and corruption.
Now how do you explain that to yourself?
Moreover, take solice in the fact that as soon as Liberal Democrates can
afford it, they tend to move to Republican suburbs to escape their
Democrat voter base and the results of Democrat governments. Pretty
interesting, don't you think? Do you think?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome to the Third World America!! |
13 Sep 2005 09:22:39 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:4322374B.4060405@mac.com...
Black Elk wrote:
We have seen parts of America that appeared to be Third World in
Louisiana, we have seen a reaction from our government that rivals Third
World incompetence and now the numbers are beginning to bear it out.
---
Try not to forget. Louisiana is overwhelmingly a Democrat state. Has been
for a hundred years. That should tell you a lot.
Correct me if I'm wrong but they voted for Bush didn't they? They have one
Republican senator and one Democratic senator don't they? Just because they
are supposedly Democratic means little if they're not providing good wages
and benefits with enough jobs. Healthcare and education are another
indicator of a healthy society, neither are provided to the poor in any
meaningful way.
"Voting for Bush" doesn't mean much in a "democracy" that can count the
votes in one night, but cannot conduct a recount if its soul depended on it.
Neither does being a "Democrat". There are places all over the country,
usually poor/urban areas, in which there are Democrats in name only.
Anyone hear of Norm Coleman? Bush's UN hatchet-man. He began his
political career as a "Democrat" mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota. With
Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
