Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

In summary: I don't know. In summary, the number of people living in poverty in the United States increased by 1.1 million from 2003 to 2004. This increase is within the limits of error in the census bureau's statistics, and means that the poverty rate in the US is now 12.7%. There is good news, however, as the job market has not yet recovered to its pre-recession levels and the poverty rate is likely to fall significantly this year. Bush's policies on unemployment are not being undermined by the increase in poverty, and the economy is slowly but surely recovering.
  • #71
Astronuc said:
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?).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
alexandra said:
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.
 
  • #73
russ_watters said:
SkyHunter said:
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.
 
  • #74
alexandra said:
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.
 
  • #75
SOS2008 said:
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. :rolleyes:

Oh it's so nice to have an informed and intelligent electorate. :rolleyes:
 
  • #76
Skyhunter said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #77
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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?

russ_watters said:
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?

russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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 :smile:

Conservative=stingy :biggrin:
 
  • #79
To put the number in comparison, it's the same number of jobs in Canada's biggest industry, forestry.
 
  • #80
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
On request:
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #82
SOS2008 said:
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.
 
  • #83
I'd buy a gun and drive to Washington.

you are now on the NSA hit list :smile:
 
  • #84
Skyhunter said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #85
russ_watters said:
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?
russ_watters said:
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??
 
  • #86
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #87
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.
 
  • #88
sid_galt said:
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 :rolleyes:
 
  • #89
sid_galt said:
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
 
  • #90
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #91
Art said:
Such a simple idea; I'm surprised nobody has tried it :rolleyes:

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.
 
  • #92
sid_galt said:
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.
 
  • #93
russ_watters said:
- 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.

russ_watters said:
Liberal=Generous with money that isn't theirs.
Your opinion, not a definition.

russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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.

russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #94
sid_galt said:
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.
 
  • #95
Art said:
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.

Art said:
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.
 
  • #96
Art said:
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.
 
  • #97
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.
 
  • #98
russ_watters: Liberal=Generous with money that isn't theirs.
Ooooh, so Bush is a liberal? His spending is becoming a record.
 
  • #99
sid_galt said:
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. :smile:

sid_galt said:
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."

sid_galt said:
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. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Art said:
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

Art said:
So as you can see capitalism is very definitely not the solution to poverty. :smile:

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.
 
  • #101
sid_galt said:
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
The conflict perspective would explain that government intervention was a tool of capitalism. Markets in England used the English government to gain advantages over Ireland, which resulted in their subsequent poverty, and more money for the English. The government was merely an extension of the people of England, who were competing in global markets.
 
  • #102
Smurf,

what you are describing (government intervention in the market to favor certain individuals) is an element of fascism and statism, not capitalism.

Capitalism means no government intervention in the markets.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
sid_galt said:
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



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.
With unregulated capitalism you get what we have today. Those with the most capital have the most influence on government. So when government interferes, it does so in favor of the capitalists who keep them in power.

A good example is the recently passed bankruptcy bill. Written by the banking lobby and "shopped" to the legislature.

The last bill that came before President Clinton was that bankruptcy bill that was passed by the House and the Senate in 2000 and he vetoed it. And in her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton took credit for that veto and she rightly should. She turned around a whole administration on the subject of bankruptcy. She got it.

MOYERS: And then?

WARREN: One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the bankruptcy bill. This is a bill that's like a vampire. It will not die. Right? There's a lot of money behind it, and it…

MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed…

WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.

MOYERS: And?

WARREN: She voted in favor of it.

MOYERS: Why?

WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.

MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as Senator.

WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript306_full.html
 
  • #104
Skyhunter said:
Great link - so Hillary is going Republican? :biggrin:

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on NOW WITH BILL MOYERS: Why are so many middle class families going broke?

WARREN: The middle class has been pushed right to the edge. They are on a cliff. And increasing numbers are falling off every single day.

ANNOUNCER: Elizabeth Warren on the two-income trap. A Bill Moyers interview.

And, on the eve of the next round of caucuses, David Brancaccio reports from the front lines of the jobless recovery.

MIKE HUCKLEBERRY: People don't understand. They're angry and they're frustrated and they don't understand why our government would allow this to happen.

ANNOUNCER: And Congress has become the millionaire's club.

STRUBBLE: If you can't raise enough money to play in the game and get on television with a lot of ratings point, you have a very low chance of winning.

ANNOUNCER: TV ads and the commercialization of democracy.

And grassroots politics where the party is just getting started.

BRANCACCIO: Welcome to NOW.

For Americans at the top, the news seems all good. The economy in the last quarter expanded by 4 percent. The stock market is up 40 percent over the past 15 months. Big profits are back on Wall Street, and this week, the WALL STREET JOURNAL is chronicling how high flyers are spending their lavish year-end bonuses on things like Lamborghinis and weddings at the palace of Versailles.

Now, step down the ladder a few rungs, and life looks quite a bit different.

MOYERS: It was summed up for me in a five-word sentence in the NEW YORK TIMES, "Family finances are being stretched." The story goes on to chronicle a prolonged borrowing spree in America: families piling on debt to buy homes, charging new computers to their credit cards and driving new cars bought on dealer credit, and renovating their houses with home equity loans. The result is a doubling of household debt since 1990.

Political candidates take note — we're not making this up — there's an invisible crisis building out there. By the end of this decade, says a new book, nearly one of every seven families in America with children may have declared itself flat broke. This year alone, more people will end up bankrupt than will suffer a heart attack. And more people will file for bankruptcy than will graduate from college.

For desperate Americans, it's scary. Look what happened in the Washington, DC area this week when WKYS, a hip-hop/R&B radio station, ran a contest offering to pay the winners' overdue bills.

DJ: I'm just payin' bills! Throwing them all over the place.

MOYERS: More than 20-thousand people sent in their bills: mortgage, gas, tuition, child care bills. The station had to replace its fax machine three times to cope with the flood of paper.
 
  • #105
Astronuc said:
Great link - so Hillary is going Republican? :biggrin:
We have two parties, Republocrats and Neocons.
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
50
Views
10K
Replies
870
Views
108K
Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
35
Views
7K
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
208
Views
17K
Back
Top