orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/11/86)
> From Guy: > Now for my meaningless personal report. I know a person who is totally > dependent on government aid for her support, no children, and who > runs out of food stamps early sometimes. I'm not sympathetic. > Why? Am I just a cruel Reaganite? No, I'm a compassionate Reaganite, > like most of us, but I know what she does with her money. Largely > it is wasted on consumer goods. She exhibits no frugality and as > such I think that her problems are mostly her fault. > > If there were kids, I'd try to help them, kids aren't responsible for > the idiocy of their parents. Unfortunately, to do that it would > be necessary to get the kids out of her control. (in the hypothetical > case, since as I've said, she doesn't have any). > > Well, I guess that proves that all social spending is wasted, right Tim? > > Guy Nope, it doesn't prove that whatsoever. It demonstrates how utterly foolish it was for the Reagan administration to cutback on the school lunch program. That program may have wasted some money by providing subsidies to some children who didn't really need them. But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of the children in this country at this time) it provided a guaranteed good meal at least once a day. It also provided a material incentive for poor kids to attend school if for no other reason than to feed their growling stomachs. The Reagan Administration has *not* been totally successful in eliminating the school lunch program - but it has hardly been for lack of trying. Such a policy will haunt us in the future when these kids grow up with brain deficiencies for the rest of their lives because of inadequate nutrition when they were young. tim sevener whuxn!orb
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/14/86)
Sevener's theorem: Poor children are the majority of the children in this country at this time. Proof: Let Poor(x) <=> x has an income that is just above the median national income or less. The result follows immediately. ------------------------- Mike Sykora
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (03/15/86)
In article <1029@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > ... > But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of > the children in this country at this time) ... This illustrates how ridiculous this debate can become. By what possible standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs under Reagan... Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate anything but emotional bias. Radford Neal
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/18/86)
> In article <1029@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > > ... > > But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of > > the children in this country at this time) ... > > This illustrates how ridiculous this debate can become. By what possible > standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries > in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that > reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been > designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs > under Reagan... > > Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps > it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate > anything but emotional bias. > > Radford Neal A *VERY* good question, Radford! How is it that one of the richest (Sweden and other nations have overcome our per capita income at this point) countries on the earth allows over 50% of its children to be impoverished? A rather sorry state of affairs isn't it? The basis for my statement that a majority of children in this country are poor are numerous studies which have shown that a majority of children live in families with incomes under the official poverty line. The official poverty line is not a joke. The New York Times last Sunday had an interesting article on the beginning of working-class homeless coming into shelters for the homeless because they had no place else to go. The percentage of income which goes for rent has increased in these families from a median level of 20% 20 years ago to 50% today. Some families wind up paying 75% of their income just to have a roof over their head. This is not a joke: it is a national tragedy of monumental proportions. Sure, one can say, well in the streets of Calcutta people literally eat shit to gain sustenance. But that hardly makes the poverty in our own country any better or justifiable. If you don't believe that try to live in poverty for awhile and see what it's like. Even when I was a student I was never below the official poverty line and yet I was constantly broke. Such is not a pleasant feeling. There are a number of reasons *why* children are the particular victims of poverty. One is a society which promulgates the idea that the sole justification for sexual activity is having babies. At the same time that many powerful elements of our society take this peculiar *moral* stance, other elements of our society find that using sex to sell everything from soap to toothpaste is quite profitable. Nowhere do such commerical purveyors of the images of sexual pleasure point out that such sexual pleasure also involves a *responsibility* - that indeed, children *WILL* result from sexual activity if no precautions are taken. Thus our society has a teenage pregnancy rate many times higher than that in every country in Europe. How welloff do you suppose a teenage mother is likely to be? Do you think she is likely to go to college, to finish high school, or to get any kind of decent job? When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tried to put on an ad suggesting that people consult a gynecologist or obstetrician about sexual responsibility, CBS refused to air it as "too controversial". While the middle-class has reduced its children because of birth control and the feeling that too many children is not a good thing, dual careers and so forth, the poor have kept having children. tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/19/86)
>Summary: How can the majority be poor? >In article <1029@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> ... >> But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of >> the children in this country at this time) ... >This illustrates how ridiculous this debate can become. By what possible >standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries >in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that >reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been >designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs >under Reagan... >Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps >it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate >anything but emotional bias. > Radford Neal Thank you for having the wit to respond to Tim's posting in a rational way. A clear understanding of what words actually mean is sorely lacking in many postings in this newsgroup. Be prepared for a response that will 'prove' you wrong. Good Luck Guy PS I posted this rather than mailed it since I think it reveals the major problem with this newsgroup.
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (03/20/86)
In article <94@gilbbs.UUCP>, mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > In article <14@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>, radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: > > By what possible > > standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries > > in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that > > reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been > > designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs > > under Reagan... > > I suggest that you look up the statistics on infant mortality in the > world. The U.S. is currently running well behind several well developed, > highly progressive nations such as Singapore and Thailand. So much for the > effects of being a "citizen" of one of the wealthiest nations on earth. I thought the issue was wealth, not health. > You conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the > wealth in this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people. > The wealth of the nation isn't in question. The poverty of a very > large segment of our population is. > You are speaking here of *relative* poverty. More later. > > > > Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps > > it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate > > anything but emotional bias. > > Let's face it, "poorness" as an attribute is a relative thing. It is not > in any way reasonable to compare the material wealth of a "poor" family to > that of a family in Bangladesh, and then conclude that the "poor" family is > in fact well off. This is typical of the new conservative tactics of > mis-information and deliberate falsehood. > "Poorness" is not a relative thing; it is capable of measure on a definite scale just like any other economic measure. You may choose to disagree on the particulars of the measurement process but the fact remains it is measureable. (The rest of the paragraph I have no argument with.) > Poverty must be judged in terms of the surroundings in which it is > discovered. Because we are *NOT* a global community, and because to some > extent the poverty of other portions of the world are our direct > responsibility, we must view our poor in terms of our own wealth, > not that of others. > I reiterate, poverty is objective, just like the rest of the world. Your characterization that we are somehow responsible for poverty because we have created wealth ourselves is typical of the leftist/socialist tactics of mis-information and deliberate falsehood. :-| (BTW, I'm not a conservative.) -- Robert Bickford (rab@well.uucp) ================================================ | I doubt if these are even my own opinions. | ================================================
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/21/86)
In article <810@well.UUCP>, rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: > > I suggest that you look up the statistics on infant mortality in the > > world. The U.S. is currently running well behind several well developed, > > highly progressive nations such as Singapore and Thailand. So much for the > > effects of being a "citizen" of one of the wealthiest nations on earth. > > I thought the issue was wealth, not health. > Ah, so you then deny any relationship between health and wealth? > > You conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the > > wealth in this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people. > > The wealth of the nation isn't in question. The poverty of a very > > large segment of our population is. > > > You are speaking here of *relative* poverty. More later. > Damn straight! More later is right! > > > > > > Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps > > > it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate > > > anything but emotional bias. > > > > Let's face it, "poorness" as an attribute is a relative thing. It is not > > in any way reasonable to compare the material wealth of a "poor" family to > > that of a family in Bangladesh, and then conclude that the "poor" family is > > in fact well off. This is typical of the new conservative tactics of > > mis-information and deliberate falsehood. > > > "Poorness" is not a relative thing; it is capable of measure on a definite > scale just like any other economic measure. You may choose to disagree on > the particulars of the measurement process but the fact remains it is > measureable. (The rest of the paragraph I have no argument with.) Poorness most certainly *IS* a relative thing. You don't think so? Go on over to Bangladesh, find someone who qualifies as "wealthy" (not stinking filthy rich, Rockefeller style), and bring them and their resources to this nation. See how wealthy they are then. > > > Poverty must be judged in terms of the surroundings in which it is > > discovered. Because we are *NOT* a global community, and because to some > > extent the poverty of other portions of the world are our direct > > responsibility, we must view our poor in terms of our own wealth, > > not that of others. > > > I reiterate, poverty is objective, just like the rest of the world. > Your characterization that we are somehow responsible for poverty because > we have created wealth ourselves is typical of the leftist/socialist > tactics of mis-information and deliberate falsehood. :-| Poverty most certainly *IS* relative. Unless the cost of food, shelter health care and clothing is the same between two cultures, the definition of poverty cannot be the same. Poverty is that attricute which limits one's ability to provide for one's self the basic necessities. As such, the metric of poverty is inextricably tied to the economy of the culture in which one resides. To argue otherwise is to ignore reality. > (BTW, I'm not a conservative.) > Oh, really? Maybe not. I'm not a "leftist/socialist" misinformer, either. And yes, *WE* create much of the poverty of the world...We have not "created welath for ourselves" out of a vacuum. Check out world resource consumption figures. I don't have recent ones, but in the recent past, the United States was using some 40% of world resources. What percentage of the world population do we support? Removing those resources from the countries where theyare found directly contributes to the poverty of those countries. We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no. We cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/24/86)
> Oh, really? Maybe not. I'm not a "leftist/socialist" misinformer, either. > And yes, *WE* create much of the poverty of the world...We have not "created > welath for ourselves" out of a vacuum. Check out world resource consumption > figures. I don't have recent ones, but in the recent past, the United States > was using some 40% of world resources. What percentage of the world population > do we support? Removing those resources from the countries where theyare > found directly contributes to the poverty of those countries. > At one time the United States was using 40% of the world's energy -- 40% of world resources seems unlikely, since "resources" includes hydropower, soil, water for irrigation, wood, metal, etc. Most of the wealth of this country is because of our OWN resources -- not the rest of the world. If you take a careful look, you will see that colonialism was bad economics for the colonial powers -- America's relatively low level of colonialism is part of why we are so rich. Concerning removing resources from other countries: industrial countries use materials like chromium ore and petroleum. The non-industrial countries where these materials were and are located have no use for these resources themselves. Buying these resources might make us rich, but in no sense does it contribute to the poverty of these countries. (Not the same issue as cash crop farming vs. subsistence farming.) > We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no. We > cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear. > > tom keller If the United States put up a ten mile high wall around our country tomorrow, we would be poorer. But the rest of the world would be VASTLY poorer.
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (03/27/86)
> > > We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no. We > > cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear. > > > > tom keller > > If the United States put up a ten mile high wall around our country tomorrow, > we would be poorer. But the rest of the world would be VASTLY poorer. Thank you, Clayton, for wonderfully stating exactly what I wanted to say to Tom, and people like him who suffer under the illusion that we are somehow 'ripping off' the rest of the world when we purchase resources from them. We use those resources to produce products that these countries have no hope of being able to produce themselves (yet), thus giving them the chance to buy those products (whereas otherwise they would only have a relatively useless resource laying around). And, about the "40%" number...... the USA has about 6% of the world's population, and we produce about 55% of the world's wealth. I don't see anything wrong with using 40% of the resources to produce 55% of the improvement in standard-of-living (not that I believe the 40% number for one minute). Countries that are so much "poorer" have simply to implement a modern economic system (free-market) to catch up to our standard of living *very quickly*. -- Robert Bickford {lll-crg,hplabs}!well!rab