didn't Malthus argue that swamps shouldn't be drained, so that the poor
wouldn't over-populate?
At 07:49 AM 1/16/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Maggie Coleman mentions the founding fathers' blaming the poor. In my
>search for the killer quote I found the following passage. Sort of nails
>everything at once -- genocide, racism, the very hard work of the
>compassionate, etc.
>
>Gene Coyle
>
>>
>>When it was "over," the British officials directly in charge of "Irish
>> famine relief," particularly acting Treasury Minister Sir Charles
>> Trevelyan,
>> congratulated themselves and were decorated as Queen Victoria
>> made her gala
>> 1848 visit to Ireland. As 1847 ended, Trevelyan wrote: ``It is my
>> opinion
>> that too much has been done for the people. Under such treatment
>> the people
>> have grown worse instead of better, and we must now try what
>> independent
>> exertion, and the operation of natural causes, can do.... I shall
>> rest after
>> two years of such continuous hard work in public service, as I
>> have never
>> had in my life."
>>
>> Then, having vacationed in France, he added: "[The] problem of Irish
>> overpopulation being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure
>> had been
>> supplied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence."
>>
>> The British historian Charles Kingsley, who accompanied the Queen
>> on her
>> gracious and glorious visit, wrote:
>>
>> "I am daunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that 100
>> miles
>> of horrible country. I don't believe they are our fault. I
>> believe
>> that there are not only many more of them than of old, but that
>> they are happier, better and more comfortably fed and lodged
>> under
>> our rule than they ever were. But to see white chimpanzees is
>> dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much."
>>
>> However, Lord Clarendon, the British viceroy in Ireland during
>> the famine,
>> saw the situation more clearly. He wrote to Prime Minister Lord John
>> Russell: "I don't think there is another legislature in Europe
>> [other than
>> the British] that would coldly persist in this policy of
>> extermination."
>
>
>
>
>Margaret Coleman wrote:
>>Yes, food banks are growing, and welfare requirements are more
>>stringent. Just
>>because the economy is doing well and there are less people collecting
>>welfare
>>doesn't mean that there are less poor people. It just means that poor
>>people
>>are having a harder time making ends meet and that tax dollars are going
>>elsewhere than helping poor people, such as supporting all those
>>compassionate
>>conservatives. In answer to another comment by [I am sorry I forget the
>>person's name] compassionate conservatism has a long history in the usa
>>-- you
>>can trace its roots to the 1820s and 30s when the first conscious shift
>>of blame
>>for poverty was placed on the poor people themselves by founding fathers in
>>boston, new york, and philadephia. maggie coleman
>>
>>Ken Hanly wrote:
>>
>> > But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare
>> > growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent?
>> > Cheers, Ken Hanly
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Joel Blau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:29 AM
>> > Subject: [PEN-L:6934] Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
>> >
>> > These outcomes are perfectly consistently with a 1997 special report
>> by the
>> > Council
>> > of Economic Advisors on this issue.. That study reported that economic
>> > growth
>> > accounted for 44 percent of the decline, while 31 percent of the decline
>> > derived
>> > from changes in the law. An appendix to the report, however, admits that
>> > changes in
>> > the law could account for as little as 13 percent. Hiliary Williamson
>> > Hoynes at
>> > Berkeley has done some useful work on this issue. She concludes that a 10
>> > percent
>> > increase in employment growth combined with a 5 percent increase in real
>> > earnings
>> > would lead to a 16 percent decline in the welfare caseload.
>> >
>> > Joel Blau
>> >
>> > Margaret Coleman wrote:
>> >
>> > > A couple of comments on the excerpts Max sent us from the prez
>> report....
>> > > 1. Mathematica (a fairly conservative (imho) think tank/number
>> crunching
>> > group)
>> > > came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a
>> month
>> > ago.
>> > > They compared the effect of the reduction of caseload under afdc
>> (old cash
>> > > benefits) and tanf (new cash benefits) rules during the recessionary
>> late
>> > 80s
>> > > and the expansion of the 90s. Their main conclusion was that the new
>> > rules
>> > > explain less than 10% of the reduction in case load, while the
>> > expansionary
>> > > economy explains about 40-50%. The rest is unknown.
>> > > 2. I suspect that a huge portion of the non-collection of benefits
>> like
>> > food
>> > > stamps is due to a lack of information as states rush to reduce case
>> load
>> > so
>> > > they can keep the block grant monies to spend on 'other' items.
>> > > 3. Mathematica and the Urban Institute have both sent people to the
>> field
>> > in
>> > > different states and the administration of new rules is tremendously at
>> > odds
>> > > with the rules as written -- in short, no one actually has any real
>> clue
>> > at all
>> > > as to how many people are eligible, how many people are collecting, and
>> > what has
>> > > happened to leavers.
>> > > 4,,,,, factoids: There is a provision in prowra (new rules) which gives
>> > > additional block grant money to the states which reduce unwed births
>> the
>> > most
>> > > WITHOUT use of abortion (perhaps an aspirin held tightly between the
>> > knees?).
>> > > Personally, I read this as an incentive to discourage legal abortions.
>> > AND in a
>> > > study about school enrollment (which I am authoring, though it is not
>> > 'official'
>> > > yet), using the survey of income and program participation (SIPP),
>> there
>> > has
>> > > been a small, but clear increase in the number of people not receiving
>> > benefits
>> > > but living at the lowest end of the income spectrum between March, 1996
>> > and
>> > > March, 1998. maggie coleman
>> > >
>> > > Max Sawicky wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Two of the most impressive achievements of the past 8 years have
>> been
>> > the
>> > > > reduction in the number of Americans receiving welfare, and the
>> increase
>> > in
>> > > > the numbers of current and former welfare recipients who are
>> working. .
>> > .
>> > > >
>> > > > . . . The 1996 reforms have undeniably been successful in reducing
>> the
>> > > > number of people receiving welfare. But reductions in caseloads
>> are not
>> > the
>> > > > only measure by which to judge the reforms: the well-being of the
>> > millions
>> > > > of former welfare recipients is at least as important. Much of
>> what we
>> > know
>> > > > about outcomes for welfare leavers comes from studies undertaken in
>> > > > individual States. . . .
>> > > >
>> > > > . . . Welfare leavers are unlikely to thrive in the workplace if they
>> > are no
>> > > > better
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
