[lit-ideas] Re: [lit-id] The Poverty of Heritage

  • From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 01:36:19 +0100

JK>I don't know that there is an argument against the U.S. being 
the "overall" richest nation in the world.  

there isn't.  

JK>  I think the point of contention is the Grand Canyon size crevasse 
in the U.S. between the rich and those in true poverty.

It is. We're going the same way as you but here the gap is nowhere near as
massive.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:32 AM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-id] The Poverty of Heritage


  I don't know that there is an argument against the U.S. being the "overall" 
richest nation in the world.  I think the point of contention is the Grand 
Canyon size crevasse in the U.S. between the rich and those in true poverty.

  But maybe I'm missing the point. Or all the points.  It wouldn't be the first 
time.

  Julie Krueger

  ========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-id] The Poverty 
of Heritage 
        Date: 5/24/06 7:15:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time 
        From: lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
        To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        Sent on:     


  I don't understand the reaction.  These results are innocuous.  The U.S. is 
the richest nation in the world by several orders of magnitude.  Why should 
anyone be surprised that we are, well, rich?  Why should anyone be surprised 
that our poor, defined as such by our own standards, are better off than the 
poor of other nations?  This is a yawn as far as Iâm concerned.  Only those 
with a drum to beat, who want to demonize the U.S. would be disappointed and 
doubtful.  They want the richness to turn to poverty.  They want to believe 
that the U.S. is the worst nation in the world, that it is the most unfair, the 
hardest in which to live, and to work, etc etc.  



  There have been polls asking various people throughout the world, where do 
you want to live, and of those who wanted to emigrate, the vast majority wanted 
to live in the U.S.âeven Middle-Easterners  Why would that be true if all 
those Leftist demonizing stories are also true?  



  Lawrence







  -----Original Message-----
  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Carol Kirschenbaum
  Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:36 PM
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [lit-ideas] [lit-id] The Poverty of Heritage



  Skewing observable facts to support one's own argument is hardly limited to 

  Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. But dear me, this 

  report cites the fact that The Poor have color televisions as testament to 

  their relatively opulent lifestyle in America.



  Find a b&w TV these days. Really. Color TV sounds opulent, all right, but 

  the truth is, color TVs are industry norm. (I paid $50 for mine, last year.) 

  Along the same lines, the report tells us that a majority of The Poor have 

  air conditioning--up from 36%, I think it was--30 years ago. Again, look at 

  the context--demographic shifts, in the past 30 years, to the American 

  Southwest, thanks to AC. (Would people move back up north if there were no 

  AC in areas that reach 100-plus degrees? With the price of fuel now, we may 

  soon find out.)



   Ditto for cars. Three-quarters of The Poor have cars, the report says. 

  Let's suppose this is true, and let's suppose, for the sake of argument, 

  that The Poor who were interviewed for this report represents people in 

  shelters and such. What's the proportion of The Poor, a la Heritage, who 

  live in congested cities like NY, Chicago, DC,  where The Middle Rich don't 

  usually have cars? So they're talking about the suburban/rural poor, then. 

  Not the elderly or disabled, who can't drive. The other third, without cars, 

  are working age but don't work--the Idle Class, as this report implies.



  It seems the Heritage folks are talking about welfare, specifically, women 

  with dependent kids. The focus is on absent fathers and mothers who don't 

  work "enough." Presumably, the report claims, more hours of work would lift 

  this family out of poverty. More hours at minimum-wage jobs? Who takes care 

  of those dependent children? Mom, if only Dad would come to his senses and 

  be a responsible family guy.



  But why doesn't it work this way? Sounds reasonable enough, right? That's 

  the problem with this Heritage Foundation report, in a nutshell: They had 

  the solution before they wrote, they thought, and they filled in the blanks 

  with stats (many out of context) that supported their conclusions.



  Lawrence, I hope your reading on Muslims has more power to it than this.



  Carol











  ------------------------------------------------------------------

  To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,

  digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 22/05/2006

Other related posts: