Re: Washington Post: As Latrinos come, Poverty rises in the US

[Ted]

On Sep 5, 3:20 pm, "GeekBoy" <g...@boy.com> wrote:
> Importing Poverty
> By Robert J. Samuelson
>
> Wednesday, September 5, 2007
>
> The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty
> and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the media and
> politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn
> persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is
> increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics
> enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is
> widely ignored.
>
> The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics
> support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the
> official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person
> household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from
> 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the recent low, 11.3 percent in 2000.
> It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the
> conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.
>
> It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people
> in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty
> rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million
> people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006
> was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics
> accounted for all of the gain.
>
> Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2
> million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of
> non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8
> percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there
> was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9
> million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat
> since 2000 but is down over longer periods.
>
> Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The
> increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and
> illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes
> largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when
> briefing on the poverty and income reports.
>
> The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and
> the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the
> poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.
>
> Why is it important to get this story straight?
>
> One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if
> any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue.
>
> Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some
> irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family
> relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks,
> the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since
> the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the
> earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further
> reduce reported poverty.
> We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no
> effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.
>
> A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default,
> our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local
> schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of
> the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics.
> Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But
> assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep
> adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In
> my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled
> Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.
>
> We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that
> legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They
> will assimilate quickest and aid the economy the most.
>
> As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status,
> both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years
> and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new
> illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.
>
> Whatever one's views, any sensible debate requires accurate information.
> There's the rub. Among many analysts, journalists and politicians, it's
> politically or psychologically discomforting to discuss these issues
> candidly. Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy
> Priorities, says his group focuses on short-term trends, where immigration's
> role isn't so apparent. Conveniently, that avoids antagonizing some of the
> center's supporters.
>
> Journalists are also leery of making the connection. Fifty-four reporters
> signed up for the center's briefing last week. With one exception (me), none
> asked about immigration's effect on poverty or incomes. But the evidence is
> hiding in plain sight, and the facts won't vanish just because we ignore
> them.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR200...

Poverty is the destiny of these low IQ invading parasites. But they
bring social decay, disease, and
crime is more important. In the long term the invaders are a menace to
the environment via population growth.

ted

http://www.amren.com/ American Renaissance

[Day Brown]

On Sep 6, 6:56 am, Ted <tedor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Poverty is the destiny of these low IQ invading parasites. But they
> bring social decay, disease, and
> crime is more important. In the long term the invaders are a menace to
> the environment via population growth.

Gibbon reported that the aristocracy encouraged immigration of cheap
labor to Rome from tribes that lacked sound republican traditions.
Machiavelli noted how they funded the campaigns of demagogues
pandering to their ethnic and religious sensibilities while making
hidden deals to reduce the taxes on the rich. He went on to note how
republics do this, and not being able to tax the people with the
money, *borrow* it from them. This works until some creditor sees that
the tax base will no longer service the debt, much less pay it off,
and refuses to lend more.

Of course, in time, this led to financial crisis.

[Rod Speed]

Day Brown <dayb...@hughes.net> wrote
> Ted <tedor...@hotmail.com> wrote

And then we worked out how to fix that problem with taxation.

Sure, the europeans got a bit carried away there for a while,
but eventually came to their senses and it works pretty well now.