Topic: Deliberate Impoverishment of the Western World

[jpatrickham]

Wednesday, 14 September 2011 06:31 The Daily Bell

 
"U.S. poverty totals hit a 50-year high Census Bureau's grim statistics show recession's lingering effects, as young adults move back home and 1 million more Americans go without health insurance ... In a grim portrait of a nation in economic turmoil, the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million — the most in at least half a century — as 1 million more Americans went without health insurance and household incomes fell sharply. – Los Angeles Times

Dominant Social Theme: These things happen. No reason. Depressions spontaneously occur. They are "market mistakes."  

Free-Market Analysis: We've spent considerable time in the past three years (the past decade, actually), analyzing how the powers-that-be have reorganized society, especially American society, in a way that relentlessly reduces prosperity. Figures released yesterday from the US Census provide a startling illustration of just how effective elites have been. (See excerpt above.)                                                                                                                              




Why would a handful of wealthy central banking families want to impoverish the US and render its citizens penniless? Our conclusion is simple: World government is on the way and the American culture is still resistant to the kind of hyper-regulatory corporatism that is necessary to support this kind of governance.

America (the West, generally) has apparently been under attack by an organized cabal of inter-generational banking families and corporate, business and military enablers for at least 200 years now, and perhaps 300 years. In the past 50 years, the pace has accelerated.

One by one, the UN, IMF, World Bank, BIS, ICC (international court), WHO and countless other globalist organizations have been put in place. The mainstream media treats this evolution as inevitable. It cannot be. Each evolution must be planned, funded and promoted. When it comes to politics of this sort, there are no coincidences, as FDR once observed."

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011091414494/us/politics-and-economics/deliberate-impoverishment-of-the-western-world.html?

[AlanS]

the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million ...........

You're going to have to define "Poverty" for me. Their idea of poverty and mine are pretty far apart. 90% of poor people still have cell phones, flat screen TV's, and air conditioning. That's not "Poverty".

[IronDioPriest]

the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million ...........

You're going to have to define "Poverty" for me. Their idea of poverty and mine are pretty far apart. 90% of poor people still have cell phones, flat screen TV's, and air conditioning. That's not "Poverty".

So true. The Left wants to live in a "Global Village" until an examination of "poverty" takes place. Then they want to look at Americans only, and compare some Americans to other Americans.

By any historic standard of the definition of poverty, poverty has been eradicated in the United States. Compared to people truly in poverty all around the world, our "poor" are upper-middle-class.

[LadyVirginia]

I think when a lot of people hear "poor" they think of the homeless living in cardboard boxes or the family living in their car.  But I'd guess that is a rarity that gets the most press and thus skews the debate.

[IronDioPriest]

I think when a lot of people hear "poor" they think of the homeless living in cardboard boxes or the family living in their car.  But I'd guess that is a rarity that gets the most press and thus skews the debate.

Yup. That characterization compared to what the government calls the "poverty threshold" are two completely different things. And ya know, someone living in a cardboard box or in their car is making a choice to do so, usually drug or alcohol induced, or sometimes mental illness. But the help is out there for anyone to stay indoors, stay clothed, and eat a square meal, if only they take the initiative to seek it out and procure it for themselves. There are those who fail at life so miserably, that they can fail at taking advantage of handouts meant specifically for them.

I read somewhere several months ago, a chart that showed how a family of four earning $60,000 actually has less buying power than a family of four earning $20,000, because of all the myriad programs and entitlements that are available for the "working poor". As Jason Lewis always says, poverty should not be measured in income, but in consumption. By that standard, the "poor" by the government standard, have it better off than a family who earns three times as much.

It's freaking upside-down.

[LadyVirginia]

I think when a lot of people hear "poor" they think of the homeless living in cardboard boxes or the family living in their car.  But I'd guess that is a rarity that gets the most press and thus skews the debate.

Yup. That characterization compared to what the government calls the "poverty threshold" are two completely different things. And ya know, someone living in a cardboard box or in their car is making a choice to do so, usually drug or alcohol induced, or sometimes mental illness. But the help is out there for anyone to stay indoors, stay clothed, and eat a square meal, if only they take the initiative to seek it out and procure it for themselves. There are those who fail at life so miserably, that they can fail at taking advantage of handouts meant specifically for them.

I read somewhere several months ago, a chart that showed how a family of four earning $60,000 actually has less buying power than a family of four earning $20,000, because of all the myriad programs and entitlements that are available for the "working poor". As Jason Lewis always says, poverty should not be measured in income, but in consumption. By that standard, the "poor" by the government standard, have it better off than a family who earns three times as much.

It's freaking upside-down.

I've said the same thing to my kids many, many times.  Our family pays for everything we have--we're in the middle like many others--we aren't rich so we can't buy whatever we want but we're not "poor" so we don't qualify for special programs.  Can't tell you how many people I've run across who don't have a pot to pee in but have a Coach purse, a fancy cell phone or computer or blow $200 at the state fair and are "poor".  And the kicker is they'll say things to me like "you're rich".  (They mistake class, grammar and analytical ability with rich. lol)

Years go I signed up my toddler at the time for a park program.  I could only afford one.  I noticed a sign informing patrons that "scholarships" were available for those who qualified.  I remember thinking at the time that it never occurred to me to even seek something like that.  When I grew up if our family couldn't afford it we didn't have it. (I have no doubt that we wouldn't have qualified for the park program anyway. )


There was a story out of Chicago probably 20 years ago about a homeless man who was given a chance at a job and new life.  A big deal was made as he flew off to a new opportunity.  Within months he was back to his cardboard box in Chicago saying the new place and job wasn't for him.
 

[AlanS]

There was a story out of Chicago probably 20 years ago about a homeless man who was given a chance at a job and new life.  A big deal was made as he flew off to a new opportunity.  Within months he was back to his cardboard box in Chicago saying the new place and job wasn't for him.
 

More like he didn't want any responsibility. Fvck him.

[rickl]

Why would a handful of wealthy central banking families want to impoverish the US and render its citizens penniless? Our conclusion is simple: World government is on the way and the American culture is still resistant to the kind of hyper-regulatory corporatism that is necessary to support this kind of governance.

I've been saying for years that the only things standing in the way of World Government are the American economy and the American military.

[AlanS]

Why would a handful of wealthy central banking families want to impoverish the US and render its citizens penniless? Our conclusion is simple: World government is on the way and the American culture is still resistant to the kind of hyper-regulatory corporatism that is necessary to support this kind of governance.

I've been saying for years that the only things standing in the way of World Government are the American economy and the American military.

True dat. You know the EU and Asia will jump on the bandwagon quick. China may put up a fight, though.

[charlesoakwood]

Unions originally fought corporatism, the company store, now they are its handmaidens.

[Glock32]

There was a story out of Chicago probably 20 years ago about a homeless man who was given a chance at a job and new life.  A big deal was made as he flew off to a new opportunity.  Within months he was back to his cardboard box in Chicago saying the new place and job wasn't for him.

Or even more recently, remember the story of the "guy with the golden voice"? I think he was discovered panhandling in Cleveland or somewhere, and he had the pitch-perfect radio voice. They flew him to California and set him up with an opportunity for voice over spots, etc. He was on Dr. Phil and all that. Last I heard he had gone back on the bottle and been arrested for domestic violence. I wouldn't be surprised if he's back to panhandling by now.

[Predator Don]

Its a ruse.....because it is deliberate. First, it was only dems who needed "the poor".....Now, in our global economy, apparantly to stay in power our world need "the poor".

[Sectionhand]

I think when a lot of people hear "poor" they think of the homeless living in cardboard boxes or the family living in their car.  But I'd guess that is a rarity that gets the most press and thus skews the debate.

My mother used to tell us about The Depression ( she graduated from high school in 1940 ) and in her discourse she always included the statement ; " We were 'poor' but we didn't know it ."

I think it depends a lot on when and how you were brought up .

[charlesoakwood]

A friend's dad would say depression, what depression?