The Iraqi Elections

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Here's an expanded table that shows poverty rate:

 

Poverty Rate (7)

 

1959 22.4%

1960 22.2 < recession year

1961 21.9

1962 21.0

1963 19.5

1964 19.0 < Johnson’s Great Society begins

1965 17.3

1966 14.7

1967 14.2

1968 12.8

1969 12.1

1970 12.6 < recession year

1971 12.5

1972 11.9

1973 11.1

1974 11.2 < recession year

1975 12.3 < recession year

1976 11.8 < individual benefits level off, decline

1977 11.6

1978 11.4

1979 11.7

1980 13.0 < recession year

1981 14.0 < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits

1982 15.0 < recession year

1983 15.2

1984 14.4

1985 14.0

1986 13.6

1987 13.4

1988 13.0

1989 12.8

1990 13.5 < recession year

1991 14.2 < recession year

1992 14.8

1993 15.1

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-60

series.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The same question was asked when we hit 1B. Then 2. Then 3. And then 4. We'll find a way. We always do.

 

The whole "necessity is the mother of invention" contention doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Europeans in the 14th century probably would have liked to have some of the medicines that we have now. The argument suggests that suffering is good because is stimulates technological development. And lots of times we haven't found a way to stop such suffering. What about population growth increases technological development? Most evidence suggests that rapid population growth decreases standards of living. So while the population grows rapidly, lots of people suffer needlessly. With sustainable growth, such suffering wouldn't have to happen.

[Guest MikeSC]

Here's an expanded table that shows poverty rate:

 

Poverty Rate (7)

 

1959 22.4%

1960 22.2 < recession year

1961 21.9

1962 21.0

1963 19.5

1964 19.0 < Johnson’s Great Society begins

1965 17.3

1966 14.7

1967 14.2

1968 12.8

1969 12.1

1970 12.6 < recession year

1971 12.5

1972 11.9

1973 11.1

1974 11.2 < recession year

1975 12.3 < recession year

1976 11.8 < individual benefits level off, decline

1977 11.6

1978 11.4

1979 11.7

1980 13.0 < recession year

1981 14.0 < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits

1982 15.0 < recession year

1983 15.2

1984 14.4

1985 14.0

1986 13.6

1987 13.4

1988 13.0

1989 12.8

1990 13.5 < recession year

1991 14.2 < recession year

1992 14.8

1993 15.1

 

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-60

series.

So, when the recession ends, the poverty rate ALSO drops. Heck, the rate is LOWER when Reagan left than when he entered office.

The whole "necessity is the mother of invention" contention doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Europeans in the 14th century probably would have liked to have some of the medicines that we have now. The argument suggests that suffering is good because is stimulates technological development. And lots of times we haven't found a way to stop such suffering. What about population growth increases technological development? Most evidence suggests that rapid population growth decreases standards of living. So while the population grows rapidly, lots of people suffer needlessly. With sustainable growth, such suffering wouldn't have to happen.

What evidence shows this? The causes of famine are always due to governments and not due to natural problems. With the Enlightenment, things changed and we've improved our ability to scientifically fix problems.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Well, if you go by that chart, the best president for the economy in the last 50 years was Richard Nixon.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

What the fuck are we gonna be eating when the population hits 20 billion?

 

This struck me as overly moronic. You do realize that the population is projected to decrease over the next 20 to 30 years right? I hope you also realize that eductation = less children. The more educated someone gets the fewer children they have.

 

Also don't even dare to bring up poverty in the U.S. because it's a fucking joke compared to the rest of the world. I've been to third world countries and the way they live makes our poor look like kings in comparision.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So, when the recession ends, the poverty rate ALSO drops. Heck, the rate is LOWER when Reagan left than when he entered office.

 

The poverty rate dropped considerably after the institution of the Great Society. When Reagan cut benefits the rate stopped dropping.

 

I am aware, however, that other factors can affect poverty besides the institution of government programs.

 

What evidence shows this? The causes of famine are always due to governments and not due to natural problems. With the Enlightenment, things changed and we've improved our ability to scientifically fix problems.

 

All I'm trying to say is that history has not really proven that humanity always finds solutions to problems--as you had asserted.

 

If production/growth was kept at a sustainable level, then perhaps a lot of needless suffering could be avoided.

 

The causes of famine are always due to governments and not due to natural problems.

 

Always? That's a bold statement.

 

With the Enlightenment, things changed and we've improved our ability to scientifically fix problems.

 

Yeah. I don't really see what you're getting at here though.

 

This struck me as overly moronic.

 

Thanks a lot. Do you normally talk to people this rudely?

 

You do realize that the population is projected to decrease over the next 20 to 30 years right?

 

According to whom? There are likely a great number of different projections. And I guess you mean world population?

 

I hope you also realize that eductation = less children. The more educated someone gets the fewer children they have.

 

Yes, I realize this--but what are you getting at?

 

Also don't even dare to bring up poverty in the U.S.

Please don't tell me what to do. In return, I won't tell you what to do, I promise.

 

I've been to third world countries and the way they live makes our poor look like kings in comparision.

 

So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that I believe everything I say or that you guys are wrong. I just think that answers to global problems aren't as easy as some people think they are. Some people think they have it all figured out and, more than likely, they probably don't.

 

Well, if you go by that chart, the best president for the economy in the last 50 years was Richard Nixon.

 

It'd be difficult to suggest that it was the best economy just because the poverty rate was the lowest, but I guess you could make that assertion.

 

I was just trying to make MikeSC question his claim that the Great Society was useless. During the Nixon administration, the programs were still in full effect--Reagan hadn't cut them yet.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, when the recession ends, the poverty rate ALSO drops. Heck, the rate is LOWER when Reagan left than when he entered office.

The poverty rate dropped considerably after the institution of the Great Society. When Reagan cut benefits the rate stopped dropping.

And then it plateaued and didn't drop another inch. So, obviously, it was not the solution. And if Reagan's cuts didn't work, logic dictates that the poverty rate would have been higher when he left.

 

The poverty rate obviously drops as simple math can demonstrate. 14% for Reagan's first year. 12.8% the year he leaves.

What evidence shows this? The causes of famine are always due to governments and not due to natural problems. With the Enlightenment, things changed and we've improved our ability to scientifically fix problems.

All I'm trying to say is that history has not really proven that humanity always finds solutions to problems--as you had asserted.

Times have changed. Clearly. For the past 400 or so years.

If production/growth was kept at a sustainable level, then perhaps a lot of needless suffering could be avoided.

Which requires massive gov't interference, which guarantees that the "sustainable level" will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.

The causes of famine are always due to governments and not due to natural problems.

Always? That's a bold statement.

Name a recent one. Even the Irish potato famine was caused by the British gov't preventing them from getting food. The African famines have been caused by the governments refusing to actually allow food to reach their people.

I've been to third world countries and the way they live makes our poor look like kings in comparision.

So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay.

It indicates that our notion of poverty isn't exactly poverty.

I was just trying to make MikeSC question his claim that the Great Society was useless.  During the Nixon administration, the programs were still in full effect--Reagan hadn't cut them yet.

And the programs didn't work. Clinton and the GOP Congress fixed a horribly flawed system.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay.

 

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Being poor in America still includes having food in your mouth, a car to drive, shelter, an education and a tv to watch. That's hardly anything to worry about compared to how people in 3rd world countries live. There's no notion of poverty here.

[Guest MikeSC]

So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay.

 

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Being poor in America still includes having food in your mouth, a car to drive, shelter, an education and a tv to watch. That's hardly anything to worry about compared to how people in 3rd world countries live. There's no notion of poverty here.

Well, if we use the logic presented, then complaining about the percentage of income the rich pay should be irrelevant, since they pay so much more money.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay.

 

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Being poor in America still includes having food in your mouth, a car to drive, shelter, an education and a tv to watch. That's hardly anything to worry about compared to how people in 3rd world countries live. There's no notion of poverty here.

?

[Guest MikeSC]

So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay.

 

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Being poor in America still includes having food in your mouth, a car to drive, shelter, an education and a tv to watch. That's hardly anything to worry about compared to how people in 3rd world countries live. There's no notion of poverty here.

?

It's the truth, NCM. The poor in America tend to have cars, places to live, color TV's, VCR's, and cable.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It's the truth, NCM. The poor in America tend to have cars, places to live, color TV's, VCR's, and cable.

 

"The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

 

Source: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Poverty_i...e_United_States

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Being poor in America still includes having food in your mouth, a car to drive, shelter, an education and a tv to watch. That's hardly anything to worry about compared to how people in 3rd world countries live. There's no notion of poverty here.

 

Inequality in education between social classes is massive here.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's the truth, NCM. The poor in America tend to have cars, places to live, color TV's, VCR's, and cable.

 

"The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

 

Source: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Poverty_i...e_United_States

Poverty in the US has been defined down for years.

 

America does not understand true poverty. We do not grasp true misery.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Hell our homeless live better than a lot of the people in Africa/India.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Name a recent one. Even the Irish potato famine was caused by the British gov't preventing them from getting food. The African famines have been caused by the governments refusing to actually allow food to reach their people.

 

 

How about the droughts in Kenya and Zimbabwe?

 

Always governments? No. Usually? Yes.

 

It's been well documented, but damn me to hell, I lost the site, thats there's enough minerals in Angola and good famland in Kenya to feed all of Africa.

 

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

 

Furthermore, there's plenty of privilged people in Third World countries.

It's naive to think every citizen of a country not in the West doesn't eat well every day. It's remarkable how many people are under that impression.

 

 

I go to school with a young lady from Zambia who said that most of North America was under a vast ignorance about Africa, that Africans have cars and shopping malls(and presumably, the colour TV's you mentioned earlier).

 

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

So, how about those Iraqi Elections