One in three in poverty in North - researchers

[PRC-UTE]

One in three in poverty in North - researchers :angry:

From:ireland.com
Friday, 4th February, 2005

Nearly one-third of the Northern Ireland population is living below the poverty line, according to research published today.

Academics at Queen's University Belfast have found that 185,000 households containing over 500,000 people were living below the poverty line.

The research revealed there was a higher proportion of families in poverty than in the Republic or in Britain.

Professors Paddy Hillyard and Eithne McLaughlin were detailing their findings at a seminar of senior social scientists and policy makers meeting in Belfast to explore how far the government is succeeding in abolishing child poverty, reducing social exclusion and improving equal opportunities in Northern Ireland.

Professor Hillyard said Northern Ireland was one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.

Poverty was measured by two yardsticks: low income and deprivation - having to go without things that?the public regard as necessities of life - money to pay for heating, electricity and telephone bills on time, and new clothes.

The reports - The Bare Necessities and The Bottom Line are shortly to be published by Save the Children in Northern Ireland.

[Latifa]

Sorry Oglach, the capitalists are intimidated by your wordy, well-researched threads.

[PRC-UTE]

sorry my bad ;)

[Professor Moneybags]

The reports - The Bare Necessities and The Bottom Line are shortly to be published by Save the Children in Northern Ireland.

No report gets written for no reason; they're whoring for more government handouts.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 01:26 PM

The reports - The Bare Necessities and The Bottom Line are shortly to be published by Save the Children in Northern Ireland.

No report gets written for no reason; they're whoring for more government handouts.
Maybe you should look up the word 'whore' -- it's what you and your capitalist ilk in Stormont are.

England should fuck off, get out. English rule only makes Ireland more impoverished and divided.

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 01:26 PM

The reports - The Bare Necessities and The Bottom Line are shortly to be published by Save the Children in Northern Ireland.

No report gets written for no reason; they're whoring for more government handouts.
Agreed, like there were no poor people in Soviet Russia. :lol:

[praxus]

England should fuck off, get out. English rule only makes Ireland more impoverished and divided.

Could you please tell me, what was the poverty rate say 25 years ago using the same exact standards that was that was used in to come to the number that was given in the article.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by the RIGHT=FREEDOM+Feb 6 2005, 11:57 AM--> (the RIGHT=FREEDOM @ Feb 6 2005, 11:57 AM)
Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 01:26 PM

The reports - The Bare Necessities and The Bottom Line are shortly to be published by Save the Children in Northern Ireland.

No report gets written for no reason; they're whoring for more government handouts.
Agreed, like there were no poor people in Soviet Russia. :lol: [/b]
there were poor in Soviet Russia. Maybe it had something to do with Russia being under a state capitalist system. No communist will deny that on this board.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:16 PM


England should fuck off, get out. English rule only makes Ireland more impoverished and divided.

Could you please tell me, what was the poverty rate say 25 years ago using the same exact standards that was that was used in to come to the number that was given in the article.
ROFL

That's the best yet.

Sure, mate, I'm a scholar and I'll whip out them stats right now. :lol: :lol:

Conditions were pretty bad in 1980, since there was a war going on. The Brit barbarians brought war to the north and fucked the whole six up the bastards.

[cormacobear]

If you wish to compare advances in quality of life, you need to compare N. Ireland to other first world Nations say Sweden, Canada Denmark, and we'll throw in The U.S.

all of these countries with the exception of the U.S. and N.Ireland have been in the top ten for average quality of life for the last twenty years, and have seen that average rise. While the U.S. and N.Ireland have failed to establish a society where poverty is minimal. While I beleive it's less incompetance of Government and rather inherant cruelty. but I'll let you decide.

[Publius]

America is doing better than all of those countries.

If you want to debate me on the lives of the poor here in America, I'm willing to.

Our country is more successful than any of those countries and would be more successful if it wasn't for harmful government regulation such as minimum wage laws, maximum work hour laws and government subsidies.

[Publius]

Quality of life index huh?

Like this one that puts Ireland as number 1?

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey+Feb 6 2005, 11:16 PM--> (OglachMcGlinchey @ Feb 6 2005, 11:16 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 05:16 PM


England should fuck off, get out. English rule only makes Ireland more impoverished and divided.

Could you please tell me, what was the poverty rate say 25 years ago using the same exact standards that was that was used in to come to the number that was given in the article.
ROFL

That's the best yet.

Sure, mate, I'm a scholar and I'll whip out them stats right now. :lol: :lol:

Conditions were pretty bad in 1980, since there was a war going on. The Brit barbarians brought war to the north and fucked the whole six up the bastards. [/b]


“Barbarian” is derived from the Greek word “barbaros”, a term used to describe anyone ignorant of the Greek language.

Your not suggesting that most Brits don't speak ancient Greek, are you!?! :o

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 03:08 PM
Maybe you should look up the word 'whore' -- it's what you and your capitalist ilk in Stormont are.


Oh sorry, my bad.

A whore voluntarily provides services for money. They just want money (taken by force).

[cormacobear]

Sweden 6.6%
Denmark 9.2%
Rep. Ireland 11.1%
Canada 11.9%
U.S. 16.9%

Luxembourg income Paper No.321
Poverty Levels in the Developed world David Jesuit, Timothy Smeeding 1997

The wealthiest nation in the world has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world. Shamefull.

[Publius]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

This is to easy. My BOOKMARKS can kick your asses in a debate.

[cormacobear]

Fair enough to show that individuals living below the poverty line in first world nations are better off than those living below the poverty line in third world nations. But that's compareing apples to oranges. When comparing the United States ( the wealthiest country in the world) to other fist world states America is doing abismally at wiping out poverty. So much for no child left behind poverty levels in the U.S. are rising where as most other coubtries in the first world not only have less wealth to work with but have lower Poverty levels that are continueing to decline.

[Publius]

Incorrect.

Did you read the whole article?

The poor in America are doing just fine compared to the well off in other countries.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Indeed, relatively the living conditions of the poor have improved - this is a necessary consequence of technological inovation and increases in the efficiency of production. In no way, however, does this legitimize the increasing divide between rich and poor . . .

. . . nor does this report, from a right-wing think-tank, acknowledge that the "car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave" are, in reality, likely owned by the bank and various creditors. Certainly, my parents have all of these things, but subject to their continued employment. Similarly, I have a microwave, and am able to eat, but were my cash-flow to take a hit, I would find myself rather quickly in dire circumstances.

Further, it's worth noting that part of the increase in efficiency of production, and consequent improvement of living conditions among first-world workers, is due to the exploitation of dirt-cheap third-world labour, where the lack of minimum wage laws, job-security, etc. (which ensure our affluence, to some degree) simply do not exist.

[cormacobear]

Not so according to reputable sources, like the United Nations, The World Bank, Amnesty international etc. etc. etc.. Try finding support for your argument from a source other than a right wing think tank. If you'd like I can provide just as biased information from left wing think tanks but I don't see how that moves the debate forward instead I choose to rely on neutral credible sources.

That article fails to take into consideration the average GDP of the U.S., compared to other first world states what a nation is capable of is as important a fact as any.

[praxus]

ROFL

That's the best yet.

Sure, mate, I'm a scholar and I'll whip out them stats right now. laugh.gif laugh.gif

Conditions were pretty bad in 1980, since there was a war going on. The Brit barbarians brought war to the north and fucked the whole six up the bastards.

So for all you know the current poverty rate could be a tremendous improvement from 25 years ago. In which case, you have no point.

[Publius]

Indeed, relatively the living conditions of the poor have improved - this is a necessary consequence of technological inovation and increases in the efficiency of production. In no way, however, does this legitimize the increasing divide between rich and poor . . .

So the poor are doing bad and it's a flaw in capitalism and the poor are doing well and it's a flaw in capitalism.

Interesting.




. . . nor does this report, from a right-wing think-tank, acknowledge that the "car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave" are, in reality, likely owned by the bank and various creditors. Certainly, my parents have all of these things, but subject to their continued employment. Similarly, I have a microwave, and am able to eat, but were my cash-flow to take a hit, I would find myself rather quickly in dire circumstances.

The government is a right wing think tank? That's where the figures were from.



Further, it's worth noting that part of the increase in efficiency of production, and consequent improvement of living conditions among first-world workers, is due to the exploitation of dirt-cheap third-world labour, where the lack of minimum wage laws, job-security, etc. (which ensure our affluence, to some degree) simply do not exist.

My bookmarks defeat this as well:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/10300228.htm

By David Brooks, NY Times Syndicated Columnist

I hate to be the bearer of good news, because only pessimists are regarded as intellectually serious, but we're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent.

Best of all, the poorer nations are leading the way. Some rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, are doing well, but the developing world is leading this economic surge. Developing countries are seeing their economies expand by 6.1 percent this year - an unprecedented rate - and, even if you take China, India and Russia out of the equation, developing world growth is still around 5 percent. As even the cautious folks at the World Bank note, all developing regions are growing faster this decade than they did in the 1980's and 90's.

This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia. In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.

Less dramatic declines in extreme poverty have been noted around the developing world, with the vital exception of sub-Saharan Africa. It now seems quite possible that we will meet the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, which were set a few years ago: the number of people living in extreme poverty will be cut in half by the year 2015. As Martin Wolf of The Financial Times wrote in his recent book, "Why Globalization Works": "Never before have so many people - or so large a proportion of the world's population - enjoyed such large rises in their standard of living."

As other research confirms, these rapid improvements at the bottom of the income ladder are contributing to and correlating with declines in illiteracy, child labor rates and fertility rates. The growth in the world's poorer regions also supports the argument that we are seeing a drop in global inequality.

Economists have been arguing furiously about whether inequality is increasing or decreasing. But it now seems likely that while inequality has grown within particular nations, it is shrinking among individuals worldwide. The Catalan economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin looked at eight measures of global inequality and found they told the same story: after remaining constant during the 70's, inequality among individuals has since declined.

What explains all this good news? The short answer is this thing we call globalization. Over the past decades, many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging. The poor nations that opened themselves up to trade, investment and those evil multinational corporations saw the sharpest poverty declines. Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering.

Of course, all the news is not good. Plagued by bad governments and AIDS, sub-Saharan Africa has not joined in the benefits of globalization. Big budget deficits in the U.S. and elsewhere threaten stable growth. High oil prices are a problem. Trade produces losers as well as winners, especially among less-skilled workers in the developed world.

But especially around Thanksgiving, it's worth appreciating some of the things that have gone right, and not just sweeping reports like the one from the World Bank under the rug.

It's worth reminding ourselves that the key task ahead is spreading the benefits of globalization to Africa and the Middle East. It's worth noting this perhaps not too surprising phenomenon: As free trade improves the lives of people in poor countries, it is viewed with suspicion by more people in rich countries.

Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base: that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world. Thanks, in part, to them, we are making progress against poverty. Thanks, in part, to them, more people around the world have something to be thankful for.

[Publius]

The source is the United States Census Bureau. Read the article.

[cormacobear]

First of all the U.S. census isn't an unbiased source they have an inherent interest in protecting the government that employs them, use international sources.

If the top 10 percent of Americans that control 75% of there nations wealth were to invest 50% of that in one year that would be 4080603 million dollars. But that's not happening is it. so we take the money from them and invest it like it ought to be. We can clearly no longer rely on the benevolence of the wealthy.

That level of foreign investment would result in double digit growth, and end the falling standards of living in many of these countries where peoples suffering is rising despite growth.

Look at where the wealth created by this growth is going, these countries generally have even worse concentrations of wealth than the U.S. and are in many cases rising.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:12 PM
The poor in America are doing just fine compared to the well off in other countries.
No we're not. Wish I could make a longer most, but I need to go to work.

[Publius]

The Census is biased but the U.N isn't?

Yawn. Since it's convenient, I'm just going to poison the well and say your sources are biased.

Do I win a prize?

Either prove there is a bias or drop it.

And as for your post, why should they be forced to do something they clearly don't want to do? You can't tell me or anyone else what to do with the capital we own.

[cormacobear]

I can't make you but legislation can. If the government tells you that you pay 70% tax you pay 70% tax.

The basis for determining potential bias is to determine motive, and potential influence from external forces. What about the U.N.'s motives do you feel biases them?

[Publius]

The U.N.'s motive is to do what's best for the UN, namely, make poverty seem as bad as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear allegiance to it. Mission accomplished.

Yeah, the government could make me, but those people have to be elected and it ain't happening (Hopefully).

[DaCuBaN]

The U.N.'s motive is to do what's best for the UN, namely, make poverty seem as bad as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear allegiance to it. Mission accomplished.

The US's motive is to do what's best for the US, namely, make private property and the free market seem as good as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear (compulsary!) allegience to it. Mission accomplished.

Y'see, I can be a smart-arse too!

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:00 PM




The US's motive is to do what's best for the US, namely, make private property and the free market seem as good as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear (compulsary!) allegience to it. Mission accomplished.

Y'see, I can be a smart-arse too!

That's actually correct.

The U.S. Government's only concern is and should be, "doing what's best for the U.S".

Mission accomplished.

You can be a smart ass, just not a very good one.

[DaCuBaN]

Ah, selective interpretation... how american of you.


Either prove there is a bias or drop it.

This was your statement, and I think now we've agreed that both the US's various state departments are biased, as are the UN's various councils. However, we come to your oh-so-american (note the emphasis? that's my way of indicating a stereotype or acronym or somesuch) habit:


The U.N.'s motive is to do what's best for the UN, namely, make poverty seem as bad as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear allegiance to it. Mission accomplished.

So by your american rules:

That's actually correct; The UN's only concern is and should be, "doing what's best for the UN".

Mission accomplished

This does of course leave the important part of the text out:


The US's motive is to do what's best for the US, namely, make private property and the free market seem as good as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear (compulsary!) allegience to it. Mission accomplished.

and...


The U.N.'s motive is to do what's best for the UN, namely, make poverty seem as bad as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear allegiance to it. Mission accomplished.


But of course, all this is so much horseshit: The debate at hand is that capitalism (and I would venture more imperialism) is to blame for the economic state of Northern Ireland. You proffered a document on the Republic of Ireland, y'know, that little state that wasn't given weapons by rich yankee's to kill each other and instead was given vast amounts of money in subsidy by the EU, but neglected to even mention Northern Ireland: That state that rich yanks filled with weapons and ammunition, like they have with so many other nations worldwide.

In short, bugger off and learn to read. Do you think I'm getting the hang of this smart-arse malarky?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Publius+Feb 9 2005, 08:43 PM--> (Publius @ Feb 9 2005, 08:43 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 07:00 PM




The US's motive is to do what's best for the US, namely, make private property and the free market seem as good as it can make it so it can get people like you to swear (compulsary!) allegience to it. Mission accomplished.

Y'see, I can be a smart-arse too!

That's actually correct.

The U.S. Government's only concern is and should be, "doing what's best for the U.S".

Mission accomplished.

You can be a smart ass, just not a very good one. [/b]
I wonder then, what base of debate do you have with the leftists here.

[Publius]

Than blame Great Britain.

[Publius]

That's actually correct; The UN's only concern is and should be, "doing what's best for the UN".

Yes. If I were in charge of the UN I would do whatever necessary to keep it in business and in a position of influence.


The debate at hand is that capitalism

Which Ireland (Not Northern) has in spades, making it one of the best countries in the world.

So basically, capitalism makes the Republic of Ireland the best nation on earth. So logically, what Northern Ireland needs is more capitalism. Right?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:37 PM

That's actually correct; The UN's only concern is and should be, "doing what's best for the UN".

Yes. If I were in charge of the UN I would do whatever necessary to keep it in business and in a position of influence.


The debate at hand is that capitalism

Which Ireland (Not Northern) has in spades, making it one of the best countries in the world.

So basically, capitalism makes the Republic of Ireland the best nation on earth. So logically, what Northern Ireland needs is more capitalism. Right?
The six counties of "northern"* Ireland are on third world standards of poverty, that's what this whole conversation's about. When capitalism runs rampant you get examples like the six. British troops were sent in to kill locals to maintain capitalism. The most dedicated and rebellious elements in the resistance recognised this, such as the hungerstrikers, the IRSP, etc.

Brits out.





*another stupid yank/brit term that doesn't make any sense -- the northern most point of the country is Co. Donegal which is in the Free State.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:00 AM
“Barbarian” is derived from the Greek word “barbaros”, a term used to describe anyone ignorant of the Greek language.

Your not suggesting that most Brits don't speak ancient Greek, are you!?! :o
I know the term barbarian and its origin. I know it came from the Greeks. To them, the sound of non-Greeks sounded like 'ba ba ba' thus the term. That's of course not the meaning of the term today, which is a destructive person -- like the Brits have behaved in Ireland.

Btw, my grandfather spoke seven languages, including Greek. He spoke more languages than his own English landlord. :lol:

[DaCuBaN]

So basically, capitalism makes the Republic of Ireland the best nation on earth. So logically, what Northern Ireland needs is more capitalism. Right?

Once again, learn to read:


the Republic of Ireland, y'know, that little state that wasn't given weapons by rich yankee's to kill each other and instead was given vast amounts of money in subsidy by the EU,

Follow yet? Subsidies are entirely at odds with Capitalism. It is the mixed economy that has made Ireland "great". What Northern Ireland (or: the Six Counties, if you'd rather) needs is less imperialism. What we all need is less capitalism.

[Publius]

Follow yet? Subsidies are entirely at odds with Capitalism. It is the mixed economy that has made Ireland "great". What Northern Ireland (or: the Six Counties, if you'd rather) needs is less imperialism. What we all need is less capitalism.

The same EU that tried to force them to raise their taxes from 10-12% up to the EU standard? Real capitalistic of them.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey+Feb 10 2005, 07:49 AM--> (OglachMcGlinchey @ Feb 10 2005, 07:49 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 03:00 AM
“Barbarian” is derived from the Greek word “barbaros”, a term used to describe anyone ignorant of the Greek language.

Your not suggesting that most Brits don't speak ancient Greek, are you!?! :o
I know the term barbarian and its origin. I know it came from the Greeks. To them, the sound of non-Greeks sounded like 'ba ba ba' thus the term. That's of course not the meaning of the term today, which is a destructive person -- like the Brits have behaved in Ireland.

Btw, my grandfather spoke seven languages, including Greek. He spoke more languages than his own English landlord. :lol: [/b]

Ahh thats ok, I can deal with being destructive, uncultured and socialy backward, just as long as it is understood that we all speak ancient Greek.

Ps your granddad must have been a smart guy.

[DaCuBaN]

The same EU that tried to force them to raise their taxes from 10-12% up to the EU standard? Real capitalistic of them.

Whilst trying to take the debate off track is an interesting tactic, noone is biting.

I will kindly ask you again if you would please learn to read:


Subsidies are entirely at odds with Capitalism. It is the mixed economy that has made Ireland "great".

In fact, your statement at the top of this post is a contradiction to your earlier claim:


capitalism makes the Republic of Ireland the best nation on earth.

I'd start collecting sandwiches if I were you; quite clearly, you are more than a few short of a picnic.

[praxus]

So is anyone going to respond to my point?

"So for all you know the current poverty rate could be a tremendous improvement from 25 years ago. In which case, you have no point."

[dakewlguy]

What's your point? Southern Ireland is prospering hugely, Northern Ireland isn't. Different countries have differing success in managing their economies, more news at 11.

[DaCuBaN]

"So for all you know the current poverty rate could be a tremendous improvement from 25 years ago. In which case, you have no point."

In all honesty, I could not say - although I think I've found a fairly definitive link, if you're any sober than I right now you might make a better job of digesting the information:

http://www.research.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/povertyfull/

From what my brain can currently digest, I think the warzone that was/is "The Six Counties/Northern Ireland" has prevented much information being gathered on the subject - much like the situation in Iraq over the last twenty five years.

The simple, hard truth is that we will probably never know - but if you're ever going to find out, the above link is your best bet.


Northern Ireland has not to date participated in the FRS and hence a comparable set of HBAI income distribution statistics does not yet exist for the region. This is a significant deficiency in the availability of data for a poverty assessment profile for Northern Ireland. The situation is, however, set to improve as Northern Ireland will be participating in the FRS from 2002 onwards.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:19 AM





Whilst trying to take the debate off track is an interesting tactic, noone is biting.

Yeah, that was my plan...

Was it or was it not capitalism that allowed Ireland to prosper?

I say so. Regardless of any subsidies it was the market that improved their conditions. Consider the subsidies an investment if you will. A little socialism now so there will be none later.

Note: I still disagree with subsidies.

And I will look into purchasing some sandwitches.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:19 PM
So is anyone going to respond to my point?

"So for all you know the current poverty rate could be a tremendous improvement from 25 years ago. In which case, you have no point."
I wonder why you're obsessed with 25 years ago. Poverty is slightly better today because 25 years ago there was a huge bombing campaign, communal violence and bloody sunday going on. However it's barely any better at all as:


Catholics remain about twice as likely as Protestants to be unemployed. Catholic men are more than two times as likely to be unemployed as are Protestant men, and more likely to be unemployed throughout Northern Ireland, for longer periods.

source (http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org/pages/Articles2001/Fair%20Employment%20and%20U.S.%20Companies%20in%20 Northern%20Ireland.htm)

[praxus]

I wonder why you're obsessed with 25 years ago. Poverty is slightly better today because 25 years ago there was a huge bombing campaign, communal violence and bloody sunday going on. However it's barely any better at all as:

Really, how much better is it today? Is the measurement for poverty the same as it was 25 years ago?

I "obsess" with it as you put it, because you are context droping. They may be worst off then the south but their better then they were before.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:24 PM

I wonder why you're obsessed with 25 years ago. Poverty is slightly better today because 25 years ago there was a huge bombing campaign, communal violence and bloody sunday going on. However it's barely any better at all as:

Really, how much better is it today? Is the measurement for poverty the same as it was 25 years ago?

I "obsess" with it as you put it, because you are context droping. They may be worst off then the south but their better then they were before.
We've already established that the south is better off because it's not as capitalist as the north, and no unemployment and poverty have barely changed in 25 years.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 01:26 PM

The reports - The Bare Necessities and The Bottom Line are shortly to be published by Save the Children in Northern Ireland.

No report gets written for no reason; they're whoring for more government handouts.
Who is whoring?

You know, the people are not whoring if it is their money any damn way!

And where do you think the government gets its money from? Its ass?&#33; <_<

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:19 AM
America is doing better than all of those countries.

If you want to debate me on the lives of the poor here in America, I&#39;m willing to.


Do you know that there is a ghetto for every city almost in your country?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 09:45 PM

Indeed, relatively the living conditions of the poor have improved - this is a necessary consequence of technological inovation and increases in the efficiency of production. In no way, however, does this legitimize the increasing divide between rich and poor . . .

So the poor are doing bad and it&#39;s a flaw in capitalism and the poor are doing well and it&#39;s a flaw in capitalism.


Exactly, beacuse their still poor and capitalism thrives off of people being poor.

Why do you insist on writing off the struggles of the poor?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:15 AM



Exactly, beacuse their still poor and capitalism thrives off of people being poor.

Why do you insist on writing off the struggles of the poor?

Because none has to be poor in America.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Publius+Feb 13 2005, 01:22 PM--> (Publius @ Feb 13 2005, 01:22 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 08:15 AM



Exactly, beacuse their still poor and capitalism thrives off of people being poor.

Why do you insist on writing off the struggles of the poor?

Because none has to be poor in America. [/b]
Exactly, no one has to poor in America (or in many parts of the world, such as Ireland) yet they are. . . why is that?

It&#39;s obvious to most people on this large site that it&#39;s capitalism.