Media Spin and the Hidden Poverty in America

“even in the official figures of 12.7%, a failure of a social system that spends $2.2 trillion dollars a year,”

What is wrong with 12.7% or even 15% poor? Imo, 10% population in every country is crazy (higher in India) anyway.

Who is gonna mow my lawn if there are no poor left?
You are against my liberties and good life. I want more poor in the US so that the Landscapers charges less.

Ps. don’t expect serious comments on Saturdays!

is this another AIDS type rant?.... AIDS = America Is Doomed Syndrome..

I saw on Oprah couple of weeks ago, that the poverty in Mid West is no different than the Katrina struck areas, even though no natural clamity has struck this region.

Re: # 1

hp ......

....... the guy who mows my lawn lives in a house bigger than mine and has two kids in college .......... fifteen years ago he lived in a trailer park .........

....... the guy who does my sprinklers is a paki with no education who also lived in a trailer park for many years before he too moved into a house bigger than mine ................. his son graduated from college last year with an engineering degree and works for a japanese auto maker ...... his daughter is aspiring to get into med school ............

....... on a cold blustry day this january my bulgarian roofer showed up with his crew of 12 mexicans and worked late into the night with floodlights - the temperature was in the low thirties ........... he lives in a more upscale neighborhood than mine and drives a better car - fifteen years ago he shared a one bedroom apartment with four other bulgarians ..........

........ when i first got my house painted about ten years ago the bulgarian painter (the roofer`s cousin) worked for fred, a cranky old white man who paid him minimum age .and was always yelling at him ........ fred retired to florida and the bulgarian took over the business .......... last year he netted over 300K and sent me a nice basket for christmas .........

.................. so i drove around down to detroit to see if i could find some ``poor`` people ......... i saw a lot of drunkards, crack addicts, single mothers, dope peddlars and street people who looked as if they might be down and out ...... but i didn`t see any poor people ............. sorry

p.s urstruly - if you want i can introduce to all three .........

oh boy...another rant from the AIDS(America is doomed syndrome) afflicted usual suspect...

#4 mian

Do you realize that ALL those example individuals own houses bigger than yours? Do you? No wonder you did not see any ``poor`` people - you did not look in the mirror!

I remember similar articles being churned out by the Communists during the hay day of communist expansion...........on the merits of the issue itself , the problem of poor is not only an issue about some elites on the top wanting these poor to exist...............most of the middle class and even the poor themselves want some section to remain at the bottom so that they can get cheap labour (which is why immigration is tolerated and they comprise a part of this pool of cheap labour)..............while the issue certainly needs more attention but that should not detract US from its commitment to the war on terror.............which is what many of the Islamists want....................

#4 hamidm, time 4 a career change?

masadi, when can we expect an article on the increase in poverty levels in the middle-east that can directly be attibuted to Islamic fundamentalism?

hamidm2 writes

<<< the guy who mows my lawn ...(one person)....the guy who does my sprinklers (two people)...my bulgarian roofer (three people, picked out of 300 million non randomly)....so I drove around downtown detrot (fantastic methodology of research)....but I didn`t see any poor people (read the title of the article again, hint ``hidden`` >>>

Poverty is very real in this country, and people who study it find out about it without using the ``witch doctor`` methodology that hamidm2 is using. The poor die at three times the rate of the average American, and they are a significant percentage of the population, showing that it is not personal character that has caused this poverty but it is system wide, the system and its structure is causing it. As for illiterates who have no clue, keep on living your meaningless latte infested lives but spare us your BS.

Ballukhan does one better than hamidm, and states explicitly that the poor want to remain poor, they want to suffer from hunger, lack of shelter, early death, much higher infant mortality, greater victims of crime etc. And what reason does this genius give us, here, from his own blessed mouth

<<< ...........most of the middle class and even the poor themselves want some section to remain at the bottom so that they can get cheap labour (which is why immigration is tolerated and they comprise a part of this pool of cheap labour)..............while the issue certainly needs more attention but that should not detract US from its commitment to the war on terror............. >>>

Nevermind the fact that most of the middle class and the poor don`t USE cheap labor, that ``cheap labor`` is mostly used by those at the top. This gradation of society is not designed by the rapidly disappearing middle class or the poor, it is designed by the elite at the very top, which Mr. ballukhan effortlessly absolves of all crime and why? So that their official mythology of `protecting the American people` by fighting a `war on terror` can be pursued. More people die every year and are at risk of death every year in the US due to want than several 9/11`s put together. A fraction of what is stolen from these people to fund the military, if that was diverted for basic need provision, poverty in America would be non existant but profits would be much lower for the leeches that suck the blood of these very people. It is for this very reason that it does not happen.

Why should the rich care about how much poverty is hidden or masquarding as the homeless? Shouldn`t they go on living and investing offshore or whatever their lil`l hearts desire?

Why should the poor care about how much poverty is around the corner and in other states? Shouldn`t they be working to get out of it or something?

Is the point of this article that this kaafir system is not working and the answer lies in the quran? Even if this is true, why should anyone who is benifitting from this system, seek to change it?

#9 by masadi on April 1, 2006 7:17pm PT


The poor die at three times the rate of the average American,


comrade masadi...if you make 150K$ and the CEO makes 15 million $, you`re still making a 100th of the CEO...but that doesn`t mean you`re doing badly at all..


Nevermind the fact that most of the middle class and the poor don`t USE cheap labor,


Umm..the middle class uses cheal labor to get their houses built...and who do you think serves up the bigmac meals that poor people buy? everyone uses cheap labor..people at the top use more of it..


ore people die every year and are at risk of death every year in the US due to want than several 9/11`s put together.


The number of people dying in muggings in NYC is probably a 100th of the number of people dying by natural causes...so you should have no trouble taking a walk in the good at night, right?

Re: # 4

Dear HamidM,

How about bringing back debtor`s prison and 3 strikes you are out for these people. Seriously low lifes like these need a good old caning on the back side to set them straight.

Thanks and Regards
Sanatani

#11 arjun writes <<< #11 by arjun_m on April 1, 2006 8:33pm PT
#9 by masadi on April 1, 2006 7:17pm PT


``The poor die at three times the rate of the average American``,


comrade masadi...if you make 150K$ and the CEO makes 15 million $, you`re still making a 100th of the CEO...but that doesn`t mean you`re doing badly at all.. >>>

$150K a year is not the cut off line for measuring poverty in the US.

Then he writes <<< ...and who do you think serves up the bigmac meals that poor people buy? >>>
The person serving the big mac is not working for the poor, neither is he kept poor because the poor want him to serve the big mac, he is working for the corporation, that extracts maximum surplus from him or her. I will not be responding to dim wit posts like the above, so please come up with something smart, or stay away from posting nonsense like

<<< The number of people dying in muggings in NYC is probably a 100th of the number of people dying by natural causes...so you should have no trouble taking a walk in the good at night, right? >>>

That is the most ignorant connection that he is trying to make, which has no connection to what I stated whatsoever. Try to read my post and understand what I was saying before you blurt out absurdities, or is that too much for you to handle?

#10 hamzaad writes <<< Is the point of this article that this kaafir system is not working and the answer lies in the quran? Even if this is true, why should anyone who is benifitting from this system, seek to change it? >>>

There is no Quran mentioned in this article, so whatever conclusions you are drawing are based on your own preconceived stereotypes. The people who benefit from this system, the tiny elite have no motivation or desire to end this suffering by millions, that is why you see a more or less stable poverty rate regardless of economic cycles or the person in power, that was one of the points of this article as well.

“Rather than outrage at why 37 million Americans are poor and chronically hungry in one of the wealthiest countries of the world, there is gloating over a fictitious one percentage improvement compared to a previous administration.”

Asadi, While agreeing with you somewhat, I still believe that 13% is really an insignificant number and I think it is actually the success of the system that keeps the numbers this low. I also think your characterization of American poor as chronically hungry, too, is a bit of exaggeration. Yes, there is poverty in the US and the US administrations play games with the numbers. Inflation and poverty numbers are never reported accurately still adding a few percentage points would not make poverty look as bad as say, for instance, in India.

Capitalism is not a system for the poor. It is perhaps the best economic system ever developed and it will continue to attract followers in the world. In the US, the capitalist is super capitalist and that brings in the concept of elitism or the power elite as you or Marshall call them.

My theory is that democracy is a system in which both the elite and the masses have to work together. Masses are given a chance to elect a group of elite they like to govern them periodically from many competing elite groups. (Yes, I meant what I wrote.) I think the role reversal would be a folly. Masses have never ruled any country or State and wherever they had taken over by some stroke of sheer luck or by surprise, their rule did not last long or failed as the masses don’t have the ability to rule. This may sound pompous or elitist but there is no evidence to the contrary and we have to accept that as fait accompli. The current partnership of masses and the elite, where the elite uses best possible means available to the group to manage the country for the majority, is a good system.

The best way is to find appropriate balance within the system. You did mention non discretionary spending and all that; often these programs need to be looked at to see how far they have worked. My thinking is that these programs should never be final. They can be expanded or shrunk based on the numbers that come thru the system.

Despite all the good programs and some bad programs, there are always going to be some people or some areas or some ethnic groups that will be left behind. No one should be looking to change a successful system because a few have fallen thru the cracks.

PS. I know it is not easy to write with single malt in hand but I will review this post in the morning.

#14 HP writes

<<< Asadi, While agreeing with you somewhat, I still believe that 13% is really an insignificant number and I think it is actually the success of the system that keeps the numbers this low >>>

Given the amount of wealth and resources used by a small percent of this country (the top 1% commanding more wealth than the rest of the 99% combined) that 13% poor, which translates into tens of millions is a huge number, above this huge number is another huge number that is extremely poor and living on the margins. A system which has such a huge disparity in the circulation and ownership of wealth is no success. It is the same system, dominated by the same elite that has produces such haphazard levels of development and underdevelopment the world over. HP sahib, you should condemn it, ruin the arguments of these elite rather than give support to their system.

Also the claim that 37 million suffer chronic hunger is not an exaggeration, it was based on the study by Loretta Schwartz Nobel, published in her book ``Growing Up Empty: The Hunger Epidemic in America``, many of the numbers are reported by the USDA itself. I am pasting an article from the Brandies U website that reproduces numbers reported by the USDA, the rest of my post will continue after the pasted article

<<< (begin copy paste)

Hunger in America rises by 43 percent over last five years
More than 38 million Americans go hungry, including nearly 14 million children
Waltham, MA, Oct. 28, 2005 –Hunger in American households has risen by 43 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data released today. The analysis, completed by the Center on Hunger and Poverty at Brandeis University, shows that more than 7 million people have joined the ranks of the hungry since 1999.

The USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, says that 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children. That figure is up from 31 million Americans in 1999.

``This is an unexpected and even stunning outcome,`` noted center director Dr. J. Larry Brown, a leading scholarly authority on domestic hunger. ``This chronic level of hunger so long after the recession ended means that it is a man-made problem. Congress and the White House urgently need to address growing income inequality and the weakening of the safety net in order to get this epidemic under control.`` According to the Center on Hunger and Poverty, food insecurity increased by nearly a million households from 2003 to 2004. Rates of hunger increased in almost every single category of household during the same time, with single mothers and those living in or near poverty continuing to suffer from severely high rates of both food insecurity and hunger.

California, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma and South Carolina all have food insecurity and hunger rates that are significantly higher than the national average. The lone bright spot in the nation is Oregon. Once considered to have the worst hunger in the country, Oregon has shown significant decreases in food insecurity and hunger since 1999-2001.

``With this astonishing level of food deprivation in America,`` Brown concluded, ``we need President Bush to step up to the plate. If he now asks Congress to cut federal food programs, hunger will increase even further. We need the moral leadership to stem this crisis.``


###

A full copy of Household Food Security in the United States, 2004 is available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err11/
To obtain a bulletin of the analysis by the Center on Poverty and Hunger, visit http://www.centeronhunger.org, or email hunger@brandeis.edu. The author of this bulletin can be contacted at bhall@brandeis.edu or by phone at 781-736-8680.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(end copy paste)

---

HP <<< Capitalism is not a system for the poor. It is perhaps the best economic system ever developed and it will continue to attract followers in the world. In the US, the capitalist is super capitalist and that brings in the concept of elitism or the power elite as you or Marshall call them. >>>

Yes you are right, it is a system of the very rich, for the very rich and by the very rich, the poor lose everything including their lives under such a system. Eventually all capitalism leads to concentration of the kind we see in the US or as you say ``super capitalist``, the result is no democracy whatsoever but a mere facade of it.

HP <<< My theory is that democracy is a system in which both the elite and the masses have to work together. Masses are given a chance to elect a group of elite they like to govern them periodically from many competing elite groups. >>>

This theory is called ``elite pluralism`` in popular political science literature. It is flawed because the elite, due to concentration and interchangibility (of this super capitalism) are becomming a near homogeneous group. The masses merely serve the function of tools that are acted upon but dont act. The issues that are debated, the exposure that is given, all circulate around the wealthy and how well their pacs and candidates are funded and how the corporate media presents them.

HP <<< Masses have never ruled any country or State and wherever they had taken over by some stroke of sheer luck or by surprise, their rule did not last long or failed as the masses don’t have the ability to rule >>>

Michels Iron law of oligarchy kicks in. Elites arise among the ``masses`` and we see the same nonsense emerging again. However, I don`t agree that the masses given proper social consciousness, over time can come up with a better system than one which produces the inequalities that we see in the current system. Rather than look at extremes, there are many areas in the middle that would produce better results. You are looking at the inability of the masses to rule given how you see them under a capitalist system. This system is designed to dumb down the masses and keep them busy with nonsense, as a result they are ill prepared to rule. This will not hold true once the system breaks down and they develop consciousness. Any alternative system that produces lesser disparities and there have been many and are many that employ a higher degree of socialism in the working of their economies are better than this system of tyranny.

HP <<< often these programs need to be looked at to see how far they have worked. My thinking is that these programs should never be final....>>>

First, these programs themselves show the failure of the capitalistic system as they are borrowed directly from socialism and involve government intervention to keep the system going or it would have collapsed long ago. The elite have never given up their battle with such help rendered to the poor, and they do their best to roll them back or as Bush was trying, to privitize social security and ruin the public school system through vouchers that would benefit private schools etc

HP <<< The current partnership of masses and the elite, where the elite uses best possible means available to the group to manage the country for the majority, is a good system. >>>

The elite are benefitting their tiny group, not the masses. All indicators reveal that the masses either stay at the same level generation after generation or become worse off. Also during the last 30 years, average wages for the majority have declined while those of this elite have gone up by tremendously. These elite take away the well paying jobs of the masses giving them temporary contingency type jobs (as the labor market stats reveal) are ruining the environment in which the majority live and steal from the third world, making sure through their policies that they remain at the same level. IT is not a good system, it is the most evil system the world has seen.

HP <<< No one should be looking to change a successful system because a few have fallen thru the cracks. >>>

Because of this system, the vast majority of those that live in our world have ``fallen through the cracks``, tens of millions in the US have and the vast majority of the rest live on the margins, ready to fall through. The system is bad it needs to be condemned and we need a new structure that places humanity before profit maximization, human needs before surplus and peaceful coexistance before economic wars.