7 Generic Olsen Poverty Bad Good

POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
POVERTY BAD
POVERTY BAD......................................................................................................................................................1 POVERTY BAD!....................................................................................................................................................5 ***DISEASE***.....................................................................................................................................................6 Poverty HIV........................................................................................................................................................7 Structural violence HIV......................................................................................................................................8 Poverty disease....................................................................................................................................................9 Poverty disease..................................................................................................................................................10 Poverty disease..................................................................................................................................................11 Poverty disease..................................................................................................................................................12 ***PROTECTIONISM***....................................................................................................................................15 PovertyProtectionism.........................................................................................................................................16 PovertyProtectionism.........................................................................................................................................17 PovertyProtectionism.........................................................................................................................................18 ...............................................................................................................................................................................18 ***TEST SUBJECTS***......................................................................................................................................19 PovertyExploitation...........................................................................................................................................20 ***CHILD LABOR***.........................................................................................................................................21 AT: Poverty goodChild Labor...........................................................................................................................22 Poverty bad- Child labor........................................................................................................................................23 ***ENVIRONMENT***......................................................................................................................................24 Poverty Bad- Environment....................................................................................................................................25 Poverty Bad- Deforestation....................................................................................................................................26 Poverty Bad- Desertification..................................................................................................................................27 Poverty Bad- Biodiversity/Ecosystem...................................................................................................................28 Poverty Bad- Air Pollution....................................................................................................................................29 Poverty Bad- Water Pollution................................................................................................................................30 Poverty Bad- Global Warming..............................................................................................................................31 Poverty Bad- Environment....................................................................................................................................32 ***SPRAWL***...................................................................................................................................................33 Poverty Bad- Sprawl..............................................................................................................................................34 Poverty Bad- Sprawl..............................................................................................................................................35 Poverty Bad- Sprawl..............................................................................................................................................36 ***SOFT POWER***...........................................................................................................................................38 Poverty Bad- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................39 Poverty Bad- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................40 Poverty Bad- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................41 Poverty Bad- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................42 Poverty bad- soft power.........................................................................................................................................43 Poverty Bad- Soft Power.......................................................................................................................................44 ***OBESITY*** ..................................................................................................................................................45 Poverty Bad- Obesity Module...............................................................................................................................46 Obesity Impact- Econ............................................................................................................................................47 ***ECONOMY***...............................................................................................................................................48 Poverty Bad- Econ Module....................................................................................................................................49
and in the daylight I dont pick up my phone, cause in the daylight anywhere feels like home
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
2 Poverty Bad- Econ Module....................................................................................................................................50 Ext- Poverty bad- Econ..........................................................................................................................................51 Ext- hurts the economy..........................................................................................................................................52 Ext- hurts economy................................................................................................................................................53 Ext- hurts the economy .........................................................................................................................................54 Ext- hurts the economy..........................................................................................................................................56 Ext- hurts the economy..........................................................................................................................................57 Ext- hurts the economy..........................................................................................................................................58 Ext- stops economic reform...................................................................................................................................60 AT: income/efficiency tradeoff..............................................................................................................................61 AT: Wealth gap growth....................................................................................................................................62 AT: Econ growth solves poverty...........................................................................................................................63 ***GUNS/VIOLENCE***....................................................................................................................................64 Poverty Guns Violence.....................................................................................................................................65 Poverty Gun Violence.......................................................................................................................................66 Poverty Gun Violence.......................................................................................................................................67 ***ARMS TRADE***..........................................................................................................................................68 Poverty Arms Trade..........................................................................................................................................69 ***TERRORISM***.............................................................................................................................................70 PovertyTerrorism...............................................................................................................................................71 PovertyTerrorism...............................................................................................................................................72 ***DEMOCRACY***..........................................................................................................................................73 Democracy Helps Poverty.....................................................................................................................................74 Democracy helps poverty......................................................................................................................................75 Democracy is awesome ........................................................................................................................................76 ***VOTING***....................................................................................................................................................77 Poverty Prevents Voting........................................................................................................................................78 Poverty Prevents Voting........................................................................................................................................79 Poverty Prevents Voting .......................................................................................................................................80 Television is racist ................................................................................................................................................83 Television bad........................................................................................................................................................84 Poor watch TV.......................................................................................................................................................85 ***TOBACCO***................................................................................................................................................86 Poor watch TV.......................................................................................................................................................87 Poverty Tobacco...............................................................................................................................................88 Poverty Tobacco...............................................................................................................................................89 Tobacco Bad - Environment..................................................................................................................................90 Tobacco Bad - Economy........................................................................................................................................92 ***KILLS CHILDREN***...................................................................................................................................93 Poverty Kills Children...........................................................................................................................................94 Poverty Kills Children...........................................................................................................................................95 Poverty Kills Children...........................................................................................................................................96 ***DRUGS***......................................................................................................................................................97 Poverty Drugs...................................................................................................................................................98 Poverty Drugs.................................................................................................................................................100
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
3 ***PATRIARCHY***........................................................................................................................................101 PovertyPatriarchy.............................................................................................................................................102 PovertyGender Inequality................................................................................................................................103 PovertyPatriarchy.............................................................................................................................................104 ***CLASSISM***..............................................................................................................................................105 PovertyClassism...............................................................................................................................................106 ***RACISM***..................................................................................................................................................107 PovertyPartiarchy/Racism................................................................................................................................108 PovertyRacism.................................................................................................................................................109 ***LAUNDRY LIST***.....................................................................................................................................110 Poverty BadLaundry List.................................................................................................................................111 ***SEX TRAFFICKING***...............................................................................................................................112 PovertySex Trafficking....................................................................................................................................113 PovertyTrafficking...........................................................................................................................................114 Poverty Sex Trafficking...................................................................................................................................115 .............................................................................................................................................................................115 POVERTY GOOD, OMG...................................................................................................................................116 ***BEES***........................................................................................................................................................117 Bees module 1/3...................................................................................................................................................118 Bees module 2/3...................................................................................................................................................119 Bees module 3/3...................................................................................................................................................120 Cell phones expanding to poor............................................................................................................................121 Ext. Less poverty more phones.......................................................................................................................122 Ext. Cell phones hurt bees...................................................................................................................................123 Ext. Bees key to biodiversity...............................................................................................................................124 Ext. Biodiversity key...........................................................................................................................................125 Poor have cell phones now..................................................................................................................................126 Poverty decreases cell phones..............................................................................................................................127 Poverty not linked to cell phones.........................................................................................................................128 ***AT: PROTECTIONISM***..........................................................................................................................129 AT: PovertyProtectionism (labor unions)........................................................................................................130 ***CHILD LABOR***.......................................................................................................................................131 Poverty goodChild Labor.................................................................................................................................132 Poverty goodChild Labor.................................................................................................................................133 ImpactsDehumanization..................................................................................................................................134 ***TEST SUBJECTS/PHARMACEUTICALS***............................................................................................135 Poverty goodTest subjects...............................................................................................................................136 Poverty goodTest subjects...............................................................................................................................137 Test subjects help pharmaceuticals......................................................................................................................138 ImpactsHeg......................................................................................................................................................139 ImpactsAIDS....................................................................................................................................................140 Impacts- AIDS.....................................................................................................................................................141 ***FOSSIL FUELS***.......................................................................................................................................142 Wealth Fossil Fuels.........................................................................................................................................143 Wealth Fossil Fuels.........................................................................................................................................144
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
4 Fossil Fuel Impact - Terrorism............................................................................................................................145 Fossil Fuel Impact - Terrorism............................................................................................................................146 Fossil Fuel Impact - Democracy..........................................................................................................................147 Fossil Fuel Impact - Economy.............................................................................................................................148 ***WASTE***....................................................................................................................................................149 Wealth Waste..................................................................................................................................................150 Technology Waste Impact - Environment...........................................................................................................151 Technology Waste Impact - Pollution.................................................................................................................152 Technology Waste Impact - Pollution.................................................................................................................153 Technology Waste Impact Pollution.................................................................................................................154 Food Waste Impact Climate Change................................................................................................................155 Food Waste Impact Climate Change................................................................................................................156 Food Waste Impact - Economy............................................................................................................................157 ***GLOBAL WARMING***............................................................................................................................158 Poverty Good- Global warming...........................................................................................................................159 ***ENVIRONMENT***....................................................................................................................................161 Poverty Good-Environment.................................................................................................................................162 ***SPRAWL***.................................................................................................................................................163 Poverty Good- Sprawl- Turns Case.....................................................................................................................164 Poverty Good- Sprawl Turns Case......................................................................................................................165 Sprawl Bad- Ecosystem.......................................................................................................................................166 Sprawl- Species Extinction..................................................................................................................................167 ***ECON***.......................................................................................................................................................168 Poverty Good- Econ.............................................................................................................................................169 Poverty Reduction Bad........................................................................................................................................170 AT: Econ Impact..................................................................................................................................................171 Poverty Good-Econ/Science................................................................................................................................172 ***JOBS***........................................................................................................................................................173 Poverty Good- Jobs..............................................................................................................................................174 ***TERRORISM***...........................................................................................................................................175 Poverty doesnt Terrorism..............................................................................................................................176 Poverty doesnt Terrorism..............................................................................................................................177 Poverty doesnt Terrorism ..............................................................................................................................178 ***DEMOCRACY***........................................................................................................................................179 Democracy doesnt help Poverty.........................................................................................................................180 ***SMOKING***...............................................................................................................................................181 Not Smoking Econ Collapse 1/2.....................................................................................................................182 Smoking Econ Collapse 2/2 ...........................................................................................................................183 Ext. Poverty smoking .....................................................................................................................................185 Ext. Removal from poverty decreases smoking .................................................................................................186 Assistance is Wasted ...........................................................................................................................................187 Smoking hurts the economy.................................................................................................................................188
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
POVERTY BAD!
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
***DISEASE***
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
Poverty HIV
Poverty increases HIV infection Mori 07 (Megumi, 2007, Stop Child Poverty, HIV/AIDS http://www.stopchildpoverty.org/learn/bigpicture/health/hivaids.php HIV transmission is profoundly influenced by the surrounding social,economic and political environment, including factors such as poverty, oppression, discrimination and illiteracy. Poverty. In both highincome and developing countries, AIDS has oftenstruck societys wealthiest and most influential, underscoring the universal nature of the threat posed by the epidemic. In general, however, the impacts of AIDS have disproportionately affected those who have the fewest economic and social resources . The epidemic reinforces these conditions by undermining food and economic security in the hardest-hit countries. AIDS deepens poverty and increases the number of poor at risk of infection , because those with the fewest resources
have the least access to health-care services or health-related information.
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
Structural violence HIV

Structural violence causes HIV/AIDS Castro and Farmer, PhD, MPH and MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, 04 (Arachu Castro, PhD, MPH and Paul Farmer, MD,
PhD, Harvard Medical School, Understanding and Addressing AIDS-Related Stigma: From Anthropological Theory to Clinical Practice in Haiti http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=2&hid=9&sid=e12e4c88-1c7a-4505-aa003ebab0bceb48%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=15557323)
We propose structural violence as a conceptual framework for understanding AIDS-related stigma. Every society is shaped by large-scale social forces that together define structural violence. These forces include racism, sexism, political violence, poverty, and other social inequalities that are rooted in historical and economic processes that sculpt the distribution and outcome of HIV/AIDS. Structural violence predisposes the human body to pathogenic vulnerability by shaping risk of infection and also rate of disease progression.( n7, n50-n53) Structural violence also determines who has access to counseling, diagnostics, and effective therapy for HIV disease. Finally, structural violence determines, in large
part, who suffers from AIDS-related stigma and discrimination. In societies marked by profound racism, it is expected that people of color with AIDS will be more stigmatized than in societies where racism is more attenuated. Similarly, gender inequality determines the extent to which sexism will mark the course of HIV disease. In highly sexist settings, the disclosure of HIV infection is more likely to provoke stigma and threat of domestic violence than in environments where women enjoy gender equity. Class often trumps both racism and
sexism. The poor almost invariably experience violations of their social and economic rights. We can therefore conclude that poverty, already representing an almost universal stigma, will be the primary reason that poor people living with HIV suffer from greater AiDS-related stigma. Racism, sexism, and
poverty exacerbate one another, especially where political violence and social inequalities are added to the equation. Together, social forces determine not only risk of HIV infection but also risk of AIDS-related stigma.
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
Poverty disease
Poverty and social inequalities lead to the spread of disease and suffering Pedersen Douglas Hospital Research Centre, McGill University 2002, (Duncan, Douglas Hospital Research Centre, McGill
University ,Political violence, ethnic conict, and contemporary wars: broad implications for health and social well-being http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-460393F1&_user=4257664&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000 022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=7e0da7cc9795aba143cf4f290aa5b654#m4.cor* When trying to explain disease occurrence, distress, and social suering in relation to contemporary wars and atrocities, the issues of poverty and social inequalities cannot be ignored. In referring to the issue of infections and inequalities, Farmer (1999) argues that scholars often make immodest claims of causality
with regards to the distribution and course of diseases which are biological in their expression but are largely socially determinedFimmodest because these claims are often wrong and misleading and divert attention from the preventable social origins of disease. He further argues that critical perspectives of
disease occurrence should question yhow large scale social forces come to have their eect on unequally positioned individuals in increasingly interconnected populations (Farmer, 1999). In the last decade, political violence has emerged as an important issue at the forefront of public health concerns (see Zwi & Ugalde, 1991). Public health has since its inception stressed the social and ecological determinants of health, providing a specic model for linking the context (ecological, economic, political, social, and cultural) in which communities, families, and persons live with the dierential distribution of health outcomes, both at the individual and collective levels. However, most community based studies (particularly epidemiological surveys) still produce probabilistic relationships between variables, such as exposure to violence and health outcomes, while generally bracket- ing many elements that are part of the macroscopic context and marginalizing the subjective experience and distress of individuals and the larger group. Critical social scientists
believe that not being explicit about the social, political, and economic sources of inequality contributes to an inadequate reading of the context in which suering and disease are produced
(Heggenhougen, 2000). The neglect of the social origins of pain and suering often results in immodest claims of causality, in the medicalization of social problems and ultimately leads to the maintenance of social inequalities. As a counterposition to the emphasis placed on neutrality and objectivity in the sciences, some health and social scientists insist on social injustice as the key factor in the production of distress, disease, and suering. While functionalist models still view society as being held together by common values and institutions, critical social sciences see social organizations in human groups as the historical results of socio-economic relations and as stemming from the disproportionate power exerted by certain groups over others.
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
10
Poverty disease
Poverty leads to outbreaks of infectious disease such as TB Rice 06 (Susan E., a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former assistant secretary of state for African affairs, spring
2006, The Threat of Global Poverty http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2006/spring_globaleconomics_rice/20060401.pdf) The risk of the global spread of communicable diseases has vastly increased as people and cargo now traverse the globe with unprecedented speed and frequency. more than two million people cross an international border each day. Forty million travelers left the United states in 1994, compared to twenty million in 1984. half these Americans made trips to the more disease-prone tropics, raising the risk that they will return to the United states with contagious illnesses. At least thirty new infectious diseases have surfaced globally in the last three decades, while twenty previously detected diseases have reemerged in new drug-resistant strains. Avian flu, Hiv/aids, severe acute respiratory syndrome (sars), hepatitis C and West Nile virus are just a few of the newly discovered diseases that have spread from the developing world to the United states or other developed countries. In the United states, the number of deaths due to infectious disease doubled to 170,000 between 1980 and 2000. Poverty contributes substantially to the outbreak of infectious disease. As the search for
clean water and firewood drives impoverished people deeper into forested areas, the risk of animal contact and exposure to new pathogens increases. By spurring population growth, contributing to immune-compromising malnutrition, and exacerbating crowding and poor living conditions, poverty also fuels the transmission of disease. For instance, water-borne diseases like cholerawhich often result from bad sanitationnow account for 90 percent of infectious diseases in developing countries. similarly, almost two million people will die this year of tuberculosis and another nearly four million from lower respiratory infections, most of whom live in poor, crowded areas of the developing world. These communicable diseases are mutating dangerously and spreading to other regions. Antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, for example, is resurgent in the United states, especially among immigrant populations.
10
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
11
Poverty disease
People in poverty are more likely to become infected Science Daily 08 (June 25th, 'Neglected Infections Of Poverty' In United States Disable Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans
Annually http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080624110934.htm) ScienceDaily (June 25, 2008) An analysis published June 25th in the open-access journal PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases highlights that diseases very similar to those plaguing Africa, Asia, and Latin America are also
occurring frequently among the poorest people in the United States, especially women and children. These diseases -- the "neglected infections of poverty" -- are caused by chronic and debilitating parasitic, bacterial, and congenital infections. While most Americans have never heard of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), the analysis estimates that these infections occur in hundreds of thousands of poor Americans
concentrated primarily in the Mississippi Delta (including post-Katrina Louisiana), Appalachia, the Mexican borderlands, and inner cities. These diseases represent a major cause of chronic disability, impaired child development,
and adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet many of them are preventable.

"The fact that these neglected infections of poverty represent some of the greatest health disparities in the United States, but they remain at the bottom of the public health agenda, is a national disgrace," says Peter J. Hotez , MD, PhD, author of the analysis and President of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, Executive Director of Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases, and Walter G. Ross Professor and Chair of the Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine department at George Washington University. Hotez notes that the common features of these neglected infections include their highly disproportionate
health impact on minorities and people living in poverty; their chronic, largely insidious, and disabling features; and their ability to promote poverty because of their impact on child development, pregnancy outcome, and productive capacity. He calls upon policy makers to make these infections a priority on the public
health agenda.
Disease creates an endless cycle of poverty Global AIDS Alliance 09 (End Poverty http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/issues/end_poverty/) Poverty and disease are inextricably linked, and this is especially true of HIV/AIDS. People who are poor or lack education are often forced to make survival choices that put them at increased risk of HIV infection. Currently 95% of all people with HIV/AIDS live in developing countries. But even in wealthy countries like the United States, the problems associated with poverty, including limited access to quality health care, housing, and HIV prevention education, increase the risk of HIV infection. This is clearly evidenced
in the disproportionate impact of HIV on African American and Latino communities across the US. The spread of AIDS also increases the threat of poverty. At the household level, families face a loss of income as wage-earners become ill, and many are forced to sell assets to pay for HIV/AIDS medications and other health services, as well as funeral expenses. At the community level, HIV is straining already over-burdened health care systems. Schools are becoming dysfunctional, losing their teachers to illness and death. In Zambia, for example, roughly half the teachers trained each year are dying from AIDS. And farmers are becoming too sick to work, exacerbating food shortages and famines in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. Quite simply, eliminating extreme poverty will make people less vulnerable to HIV, and slowing the
spread of HIV will help reduce poverty.
11
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
12
Poverty disease
Poverty leads to disease outbreak, mutations kill millions Rice 07 (Susan E., 2007, Brookings, Global Poverty, Weak States http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2006/08globaleconomics_rice/08globaleconomics_rice.pdf
and Insecurity
Poverty increases the risk of human exposure to pathogens and severely constrains poor countries capacity to prevent, detect and treat deadly disease outbreaks or to contain them before they spread abroad. The incidence of deaths due to infectious disease is rising. Two times more Americans (a total of 170,000) died of infectious diseases 2000 than in 1980. 29 Of the roughly thirty new infectious diseases that
have emerged globally over the past three decades, many such as SARS, West Nile virus, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, and H5N1 avian flu virus originated in developing countries that had rudimentary disease surveillance capability. Growing
population pressure impels people seeking arable land, firewood and water to press deeper into previously uninhabited areas. The risk of human exposure to zoonotic diseases consequently increases.
Poor families in developing countries also often live in close proximity to their livestock, which provide sustenance and income. Chickens and pigs have proved the source of deadly diseases that jump from animal to human.
H5N1 avian flu is the most alarming recent example. Should that virus mutate into a form easily transmissible from human to human, the threat of a global pandemic becomes imminent. With mortality rates currently exceeding 50%, if a mutated virus retains the virulence of current strains, it could kill tens of millions worldwide. As of July 4, 2006, the H5N1 virus had been confirmed in humans or animals
in at least 48 countries, including some of the most impoverished, remote and poorly-governed parts of Asia and Africa (e.g. Nigeria, Sudan, Cote DIvoire, Niger, Burkina Faso, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,) adding to fears that the virus could mutate as a result of contact between animals and humans. At the same time, if a deadly mutation first occurs in a country with weak health care infrastructure, the odds of detecting and swiftly containing the outbreak are reduced
12
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
13
Poverty disease
Poverty and lack of health care access lead to disease, especially HIV and TB Wasylenki 01 (Donald A., Psychiatrist-in-Chief at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, and Professor and Chair, Department of
Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 1-23-2001, Inner City Health http://www.ecmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/2/214 Our country's international commitment to sustainable cities must be applied to the problems of inner city health in Canada, some of which are described in this issue (page 229) by Stephen Hwang.4 Within the broader concept of the urban environment, inner cities have been defined as "areas generally characterized by above average concentrations of unemployment, full-time workers living on low pay, single parents and the sick and the disabled who are living in poor quality and deteriorating housing conditions."5 Inner cities, however, can become vibrant centres of regeneration and innovation, and poverty and disadvantage are seldom confined neatly to identifiable geographic areas. Nevertheless,
significant threats to public health in inner city environments continue to emerge. These include the rise of homelessness, the increased availability of illicit drugs, the spread of HIV infection and treatment-resistant tuberculosis and a concentration of certain types of pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and moulds. Public policies in urban areas can also lead to a worsening of the inner city environment for the urban poor, including a lack of social housing and reductions in welfare payments. In addition, according to the diffusion hypothesis,6 the failure to contain health problems that begin in inner cities allows them to spread to other urban, suburban and even rural communities. Many suburbs in the United States are experiencing rising rates of violence, substance abuse, HIV infection and tuberculosis.
The relationship between socio-economic status and health has been well documented in the United States and the United Kingdom. Poverty has been shown to be a cause of poor health and also limits access to both preventive
and remedial health care. In the United States, strong correlations have been demonstrated between lower income and higher mortality, regardless of ethnic origin. Poverty has also been shown to increase the
likelihood of encountering violence, to produce high rates of child abuse and to cause family and community breakdown in urban environments. In addition, US researchers have demonstrated adverse impacts on health related to inequality in the distribution of income within states, independent of the effect of household income.7 In other words, in states where
income inequalities are greatest, all residents are at higher risk for poor health outcomes. Thus, distribution of income within a society has begun to emerge as a predictor of health status. In 1997 the American College of Physicians identified the health problems most commonly associated with US inner cities as violence, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse and HIV infection and also emphasized the challenges posed by people living with chronic illnesses such as tuberculosis, asthma and diabete s.8 The
college referred to the extent of the disadvantage social, economic and health-related experienced by inner city populations as resulting in an "urban health penalty" and made a series of recommendations to address inequalities. Chief among these recommendations was the development of a comprehensive urban policy that addresses the root causes of poverty. More specific recommendations included increasing the number of health care providers in the inner city and involving both public health workers and communities in tackling problems such as tobacco, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy and violence.
13
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
14
Poverty tuberculosis
Poverty causes TB- overcrowding, lack of access to health care Figueroa-Munoza and Ramon-Pardo 08 (Jose I Figueroa-Munoza, City and Hackney Primary Care Trust, St Leonards
Hospital, and Pilar Ramon-Pardo, Tuberculosis Programme, Pan-American Health Organization, 2008, Tuberculosis control in vulnerable groups http://wf2dnvr14.webfeat.org:80/wohUM18/url=http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf9/pdf/2008/BUW/01Sep08/34245714.pdf? T=P&P=AN&K=34245714&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeqLM4yOvqOLCmrlGep65Sr6e4S6%2BWxWXS&Cont entCustomer=dGJyMOLX8Izh5epT69fnhrnb54z16QAA)
Tuberculosis (TB) remains an important public health problem in industrialized countries. The majority of cases occur in minority groups, particularly recently arrived immigrants from countries with high
endemicity who often congregate in deprived communities within wealthy cities. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, people from the Indian subcontinent and sub-Saharan Africa living in inner cities have higher rates of TB than the general population; particularly during the first years after arriving in the country. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has had a disproportionate impact among ethnic minorities in large industrialized cities. Deprived isolated communities within wealthier environments constitute a challenge for TB control. The association between TB and
poverty is mediated by overcrowding, poorly ventilated housing, malnutrition, smoking, stress, social deprivation and poor social capital. The perceptions of health and illness in many minority groups are altered resulting in a negative impact on health-seeking behaviours and access to services. Important factors include disrupted social networks, social exclusion, reduced accessibility to health care, lack of egalitarian participation in society and lack of trust, understanding or respect for the system. Women, unemployed and homeless people experience longer delays in seeking care resulting in increased suffering and expenses and higher risk of community transmission. Homeless people are at higher risk for TB Figueroa-Munoza and Ramon-Pardo 08 (Jose I Figueroa-Munoza, City and Hackney Primary Care Trust, St Leonards
Hospital, and Pilar Ramon-Pardo, Tuberculosis Programme, Pan-American Health Organization, 2008, Tuberculosis control in vulnerable groups http://wf2dnvr14.webfeat.org:80/wohUM18/url=http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf9/pdf/2008/BUW/01Sep08/34245714.pdf? T=P&P=AN&K=34245714&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeqLM4yOvqOLCmrlGep65Sr6e4S6%2BWxWXS&Cont entCustomer=dGJyMOLX8Izh5epT69fnhrnb54z16QAA)
Homeless populations exist in wealthy cities due to insufficient affordable housing, mental or physical illnesses, substance abuse or poor education. Homeless people are at increased risk of TB, have higher default rates and worse treatment outcomes (including mortality) than the general public. In many industrialized countries, TB rates among the homeless can be up to 20 times higher than the general population. The majority of TB cases in urban homeless populations are attributable to ongoing transmission in shelters.2 Poor compliance results in low effectiveness of isoniazid preventive (INH) therapy,3 high default rates, poor treatment outcomes, high mortality often related to
poor nutritional status and concomitant illness including HIV. Hospitalization rates are higher and for longer periods, resulting in higher health-care expenditure. Contact identification and tracing is challenging, particularly for individuals living on the streets at the time of diagnosis.
14
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
15
***PROTECTIONISM***
15
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
16
PovertyProtectionism
Poverty key to labor union membership Tait, labor activist and journalist, 05
(Vanessa Tait, 2005, Poor Workers Unions: reducing labor from below, p. 5-6)
Unions matter for all workers, but particularly for those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. In recent decades, the owning class has mandated increasing poverty for these workers, as capital has found new
ways to exploit the low-wage workforce and widen its profit margins. Between 1968 and 2000, the US minimum wage lost over 35 percent of its value while domestic corporate profits rose more than 158 percent} Disproportionately affected were workers in largely nonunionized sectors, such as clerical and service work, whose wages lagged far behind inflation. Globalization and deregulation, supported by neoliberal free market ideologies, have adversely affected workers livesboth in the United States and abroadas older sectors of the economy decline and newer ones emerge, bringing with them labor-driven migrations across borders. Many undocumented immigrants work in the expanding "informal economy` without benefits or a living wage. They constitute a huge and mostly hidden second-tier labor market in cities (in restaurants, manufacturing, and service work) as well as rural areas (in agricultural work). Estimated at 6 to 12 million, undocumented workers make up 4 to 8 percent of the US labor force} Unions secure improvements such as higher wages and enhanced job security, health and safety
protections, and dignity and respect, protecting workers against both the whims of individual bosses and the general climate of economic exploitation . The stronger the labor movement is, the more potential power it has in the political arena to bring about policies benefiting workers. Perhaps most fundamentally, unions empower the individuals who build them, encouraging their sense of community and their ability to work for social change. They teach the basic democratic lesson that you can change the world around you as well as your working conditions. This empowerment can lead workers to advocate and act for broader social and economic justice, beyond their own lives. At a time when US trade union strength has dropped to its lowest levels since the 1920s,
questions about who and how to organize are again topping labors agenda. While an independent poor workers movement continues to blossom outside of the AFL-CIO, members inside the federation are also raising critical questions about how trade unions can reverse their precipitous decline. Which workers should organizers target? How should workers institutions organize themselves? The AFL-CIO is undergoing its deepest re-examination in decades, with the debate ranging from those advancing plans for massive union mergers and industry-focused campaigns to those who advocate greater democracy and intensified rankandfile organizing. The outcome will affect millions of poor workers who urgently want to be part of a movement for social and economic justice.
16
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
17
Poor families are pressured to join unions Seidman et. al, 51
(Joel Seidman, Jack London and Bernard Karsh, 1951, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1951, <http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/274/1/75.pdf>)
Among those who reported family background as an explanation of their having joined the union were several whose fathers had been members of the Industrial Workers of the World, the United Mine Workers, or other labor organizations and held strong pro-union convictions . One of the leadership group,
Family background. son of a union miner, stated, "I attended union meetings with my father before I was ever inside a church." Another remembered when he was a small boy attending Socialist meetings with his father. An inactive member said, "Mydad was a great union man and thats where I got itif it wasnt union, it wasnt no good." Another inactive, who followed his father into the companys employ, had already seen the benefits that his father received through the union, and joined for that reason. With one of the leaders, it was family poverty rather than his parents convictions that made him pro-union at an early age. He said: "I was union- minded long before I came here .... Family background is one of constant struggle during the depression. Even as a kid you hate the bosses when you know there is plenty, yet the family hasnt a thing. The size of the American labor movement today suggests that unions may achieve greater stability in the future, since so many of tomorrows workers are being raised in families whose breadwinners are union members.
17
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
18
Jobs needed to lift people out of poverty are outsourcedprotectionist backlash Cassidy, staffwriter for the New Yorker, 04
(John Cassidy, Winners and Losers: The Truth about Free Trade, 2004, <http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~kyu/E4111/Cassidy2004.pdf>) N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, is a tall, mild-mannered Harvard scholar, widely admired within his profession for his sharp mind and clear exposition. He joined the Bush Administration last year, replacing Glenn Hubbard, who returned to Columbia University, and during his first nine months in Washington he attracted little attention, which suited him fine. However, in February, Mankiw found himself in the headlines after he described outsourcingthe shifting abroad of previously secure jobs, such as accounting and computer programming as the latest manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about at least since Adam Smith. As Mankiw put it, Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade . . . . More things are tradable than were tradable in the past and thats a good thing. The response to these statements was immediate and bipartisan. Senator John Kerry, the Presidential candidate-elect, accused the White House of wishing to export more of our jobs overseas. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, claimed that President Bush and his advisers subscribed to Alicein- Wonderland economics. On the Republican side, Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, said Mankiws theory fails a basic test of economics, and Donald Manzullo, a congressman from Illinois, called for his resignation. Even the President seemed to disown Mankiws words. There are people looking for work because jobs have gone overseas, he said. We need to act to make sure there are more jobs at home. Shortly after receiving this public upbraiding, a chastened Mankiw spoke at a conference of economists, in Washington. He said that he had learned a valuable lesson: Economists and non-economists speak very different languages. The two languages share many words in common, but they are often interpreted in different ways. Mankiw had a point. Put two economists in a room together and plain English is usually the first casualty. And yet the outcry his statements provoked cannot be dismissed as a linguistic misunderstanding. Although the number of people employed has picked up in recent months, the economy is still creating far fewer jobs than it did during previous cyclical upswings. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, non-farm employment peaked in March, 2001, at 132.5 million. In June, 2004, almost three years into an economic recovery, total non-farm employment was 131.1 million. It is also an undisputed fact that many American businesses are choosing to relocate production to places like China and India, where there is ample cheap labor. I.B.M., for one, has confirmed that it is considering moving tens of thousands of jobs overseas to save money. In the past, manufacturing bore the brunt of this global labor arbitrage. Today, largely thanks to digitization and the Internet, the service sector, which employs fully four-fifths of the labor force, is increasingly affected. Many whitecollar industries that once provided safe, well-paid employment, such as telecommunications, insurance, and stockbroking, are no longer immune from the temptation to outsource. Welleducated American workers see software programmers in Bangalore earning six dollars an hour, when similarly trained domestic programmers are paid fifty or sixty dollars an hour, and, not surprisingly, they worry about their own livelihoods. Politicians are paid to reflect these concerns. As a senator, Kerry supported a host of free-trade initiatives, including the North American Free Trade Agreement and the extension of Most Favored Nation status to China. But once he embarked on a Presidential campaign he railed against Benedict Arnold C.E.O.s who transfer jobs overseas, and he proposed policies designed to limit outsourcing. Senator John Edwards, Kerrys running mate, has taken an even harder line. The Bush Administration, despite its ostensible support for trade liberalization, didnt hesitate to impose tariffs on foreign steel to protect domestic producers in swing states such as Ohio and West Virginia. The steel tariffs were eventually removed, after the European Union threatened a trade war, but the United States continues to provide hefty subsidies to dairy farmers, tobacco growers, and other agricultural producers. Given these political realities, it is left to economists to defend free trade, which they tend to do without reservation, regardless of political affiliation. For example, one of Mankiws predecessors, Martin N. Baily, who served in the Clinton Administration, has just coauthored a paper entitled Exploding the Myths of Offshoring, which echoes Mankiws arguments almost word for word. Despite Kerrys tough public stance, many of his economic advisers endorse views similar to Mankiws and Bailys, as do the vast majority of economic commentators. During recent months, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Business Week, Fortune, and The Economist have each published articles pointing out the benefits of outsourcing.
18
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
19
***TEST SUBJECTS***
19
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
20
PovertyExploitation
Pharmaceutical companies exploit poor people--dehumanization Organic Consumers Association, 06
Organic Consumers Association, March 07, 2006, <http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_81.cfm Now, over 60 years after the Holocaust, we'd all like to think that society is above such cruelty, but in reality, human experimentation is still a common practice in modern medicine. Big Pharma operates by many of the same rules and motives as IG Farben did, and the test subjects are still the most vulnerable members of society -- the poor, immigrants, minority groups and children. "Few doctors dispute that testing drugs on people is necessary. No amount of experimentation on laboratory rats will reliably show how a chemical will affect people," David Evans, et al. writes in the Bloomberg article "Drug Industry Human Testing Masks Death, Injury, Compliant FDA". Doctors have recognized the importance of human experimentation since the days of Hippocrates, though the ancient Greeks used it to benefit individual patients rather than science itself or any profit-driven industry. In 1833, William Beaumont, the army surgeon physician who pioneered gastric medicine with his study of a patient who'd sustained a gunshot wound that left his digestive system permanently exposed, established the importance of human experimentation as long as it is with the subject's consent. However, sometimes it's difficult to find human test subjects, especially for studies involving pain or high risk. In the 1930s, research scientists discovered a solution to their difficulty in finding willing test subjects: Don't ask for their consent. In the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the United States Public Health Service diagnosed 200 black men with syphilis and, rather than treating or even informing them of their illness, used them as human guinea pigs to study the symptoms and progression of the disease. Today, as the University of Virginia Health System writes in its online documentary "Bad Blood", "The Tuskegee Syphilis Study has become a powerful symbol of racism in medicine, ethical misconduct in human research, and government abuse of the vulnerable." During the Holocaust, IG Farben trumped the moral depravity of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Why use and abuse only 200 unwilling human test subjects when you can choose from the multitudes imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps? IG Farben callously used concentration camp inmates of all ages for painful, debilitating and often deadly experiments. Because of this, medical experimentation has become synonymous with injustice, cruelty, prejudice and total disregard for human life. Today, few people would try to justify or support IG Farben's medical experiements, but the sad truth is that modern human medical experimentation is in many ways similar to the horrors carried out by IG Farben. Experimental drug testing centers During the Nuremberg Trial, Dr. Waldemar Hoven, the Nazi doctor who gave lethal injections to his patients at Buchenwald, gave the following account of the medical experiments he and other concentration camp physicians performed: "It should be generally known, and especially in German scientific circles, that the SS did not have notable scientists at its disposal. It is clear that the experiments in the concentration camps with IG preparations only took place in the interests of the IG, which strived by all means to determine the effectiveness of these preparations. They let the SS deal with the -- shall I say -- dirty work in the concentration camps. It was not the IGs intention to bring any of this out in the open, but rather to put up a smoke screen around the experiments so that ... they could keep any profits to themselves. Not the SS but the IG took the initiative for the concentration camp experiments." Like IG Farben, Big Pharma doesn't perform its own experiments. Instead, it doles out the "dirty work" to experimental drug testing centers, some of which confine test subjects for portions of the study. In a Bloomberg article entitled "Miami Test Center Lures Poor Immigrants as Human Guinea Pigs", Argentinian immigrant Roberto Alvarez describes the eight days he spent confined to the Miami-based SFBC testing center: "It can be weird inside. It's like a jail." In many ways, it is like a jail. In Miami's SFBC, which is the largest center of its kind in North America, test subjects sleep six to a room in double-decker beds. They even have uniforms to wear -- purple drawstring pants and Tshirts, much like the uniforms of concentrate camp victims. Dr. Hoven's criticism of IG Farben's experiments in Nazi concentration camps could easily be directed to Big Pharma's human experiments. In fact, it has. "Some test centers, FDA records show, have used poorly trained and unlicensed clinicians to give participants experimental drugs. The centers ... sometimes have incomplete or illegible records," David Evans, et al. writes.
20
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
21
***CHILD LABOR***
21
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
22
AT: Poverty goodChild Labor

Negative feedbackthe initial rise in child labor causes drastic drops Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, 02
(Eric V. Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, Director of the Child Labor Network at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Research Fellow at IZA, and an associate editor at Economic Development and Cultural Change. Edmonds received his Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University and a M.A. and B.A. in Economics from the University of Chicago, 2/24/2002, Globalization and the Economics of Child Labor, <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eedmonds/nzzessay.pdf> p. 29)
induced improvements in earnings opportunities can reduce child labor . If poverty drives child labor, children work either for the income from work or because they cannot afford school fees. When one child makes more as a result of globalization, other children may be able to stop working and attend school. Moreover, increased parental earnings may help parents reduce the work that children perform. Parents can buy substitutes for goods previously produced by children, or they can use their increased income to substitute for the money previously earned by children . Hence, globalization can help
Alternatively, globalization parents in poor countries stop child labor without foreign intervention. Of course, critics of globalization question whether globalization increases the earnings opportunities of residents in poorer countries. Globalization increases a countrys exposure to foreign competition. This may force inefficient firms in import-competing industries out of business. Regardless of the long-term benefits of this reallocation of resources, in the short term, these adjustments may create difficulty for some households with children.
Parents dont send their kids to work when they have enough money Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, 02
(Eric V. Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, Director of the Child Labor Network at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Research Fellow at IZA, and an associate editor at Economic Development and Cultural Change. Edmonds received his Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University and a M.A. and B.A. in Economics from the University of Chicago, 2/24/2002, Globalization and the Economics of Child Labor, <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eedmonds/nzzessay.pdf> p. 29) So why is child labor so pervasive? For the simple reason that impoverished households need their children to work. Households that cannot meet their basic needs depend upon the income of their children for survival. Without the income from working children, parents in poor households may have to choose which children to feed. Moreover, schooling is expensive in most of the developing world. Thus, it is not uncommon to see some children working so that their siblings may attend school. If governments could somehow prevent children from working, we might see less schooling rather than more, because the loss of income from working children would make schooling even more unaffordable. A casual crosscountry comparison supports the view that child labor stems from poverty. In the worlds poorest nations with per capita incomes below $1,500 in 1998, it is not unusual to find over 30% of children working. In contrast, child labor is rare in countries with per capita incomes above 7,000 U.S. Dollars. Per capita income of the U.S. in 1998 was approximately $30,000. Thus, parents in countries that are not even a quarter as wealthy as the U.S. are able to keep their children from having to work. This cross-country evidence on the link between child labor and poverty is supported by a recent study in Vietnam that examines how the economic activities of children evolve as household incomes change. The General Statistical Office of Vietnam and the World Bank followed over 4,000 households during Vietnams economic boom in the 1990s. Participation rates in child 3 labor declined by over 25% in rural Vietnamese households between 1993 and 1998. The declines in child labor were largest in the households experiencing the largest growth in living standards during Vietnams boom. Income growth was largest in poor households. Overall, the
study finds that improvements in living standards can explain 94% of the decline in child labor for households near the poverty line in Vietnam. Thus, the evidence from both across and within countries suggests that children work because of poverty. When incomes increase, children stop working.
22
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
23
Poverty bad- Child labor

Poverty induces child labor Edmonds and Pavcnik, Assistant Professor @Dartmouth College, 05
(Eric V Edmonds, Assistant Professor, Economics Department, Arts & Sciences, Dartmouth College, MA, PhD, BA, Nina Pavcnik, Associate Professor, Economics Department, Arts & Sciences, PhD, BA, Winter 2005, Child Labor in the Global Economy The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, Iss. 1, pg 199, Proquest) Evidence on three facets of poverty is particularly compelling. First, child labor seems to decline dramatically with improvements in household living standards. Some of the evidence from household responses to trade liberalization is particularly interesting here. Despite rising employment opportunities for children, we observe declines in child labor as family incomes rise with trade. Second, child labor seems to be highly
responsive to unexpected changes in the family's economic environment. Difficulty in transferring income over time (through saving or borrowing) is a common correlate of poverty, and research from several countries suggests that credit constraints and financial market imperfections increase the number of children who have to work. Third, poor local institutions such as ineffective or expensive schools
associated with poverty may leave children with few sensible options other than work. We describe the evidence on how these three facets of poverty affect child labor in this section.
23
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
24
***ENVIRONMENT***
24
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
25
Poverty Bad- Environment

Poverty promotes environmental degredation- economic growth is necessary for sustainable development
United Nations 1987 (UN Documents, June 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm)
essential needs of vast numbers of people in developing countries for food, clothing, shelter, jobs - are not being met, and beyond their basic needs these people have legitimate aspirations for an improved quality of life. A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and other crises. Sustainable
4 The satisfaction of human needs and aspirations in the major objective of development. The development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life. 5. Living standards that go beyond the basic minimum are sustainable only if consumption standards everywhere have regard for long-term sustainability. Yet many of us live beyond the world's ecological means, for instance in our patterns of energy use. Perceived needs are socially and culturally determined, and sustainable development requires the promotion of values that encourage consumption standards that are within the bounds of the ecological possible and to which all can reasonably aspire. 6. Meeting essential needs depends in part on achieving full growth potential, and sustainable development clearly requires economic growth in places where such needs are not being met. Elsewhere, it can be consistent with
economic growth, provided the content of growth reflects the broad principles of sustainability and non-exploitation of others. But growth by itself is not enough. High levels of productive activity and widespread poverty can coexist, and can endanger the environment. Hence sustainable development requires
that societies meet human needs both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable opportunities for all.
25
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
26
Poverty Bad- Deforestation

Poverty causes deforestation Mabogunje, prof. of Geography in Nigeria and former preosdent of International geographic union, 02
(Akin L Mabogunje, chairman of the Development Policy Centre in Ibadan, Nigeria, formerly was Professor of Geography, Dean of the Faculty of the Social Science, and Director of the Planning Studies Programme, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, former President of the International Geographical Union (1980-1984). He served as Chairman of the Committee on Human Settlements of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (1977-79), Jan/Feb 02, Poverty and environmental degradation: Challenges within the global economy, Environment, Vol. 44, Iss. 1, pg. 8)
Deforestation. The agricultural practices in developing countries are still relatively primitive, depending largely on bush-fallow cultivation, with the repeated clearing and burning of shrub and forest to make room for food crops. Equally significant is the deforestation arising from the need for firewood . For instance, it is
estimated, that firewood and brush provide about 52 percent of the domestic energy supply in sub-Saharan Africa; charcoal, another forest product, is also major source of domestic energy.13
26
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
27
Poverty Bad- Desertification

Poverty causes desertification Mabogunje, prof. of Geography in Nigeria and former preosdent of International geographic union, 02
Desertification. Overcultivation and overgrazing on marginal lands are the major causes of desertification. Although desertification results from many factors and occurs in a variety of environments, rangelands
are particularly at risk because they are often found in and and semiarid regions. In the tropical grassland regions that often border deserts, overgrazing is a potent cause of desertification because feeding the livestock population (which is rapidly expanding to meet increased demand) requires frontier expansion. Desertification also arises
from the removal of wood for fuel and the salinization of croplands caused by poorly managed irrigation.
27
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
28 Poverty Bad- Biodiversity/Ecosystem Poverty collapses Biodiversity and the ecosystem Mabogunje, prof. of Geography in Nigeria and former preosdent of International geographic union, 02
(Akin L Mabogunje, chairman of the Development Policy Centre in Ibadan, Nigeria, formerly was Professor of Geography, Dean of the Faculty of the Social Science, and Director of the Planning Studies Programme, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, former President of the International Geographical Union (1980-1984). He served as Chairman of the Committee on Human Settlements of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (1977-79), Jan/Feb 02, Poverty and environmental degradation: Challenges within the global economy, Environment, Vol. 44, Iss. 1, pg. 8) Biodiversity loss. The wide range of ecosystems on which the poor eke out a living has been degraded , and the ecosystems' diverse communities of plants and animals have been put at risk in the process. According to the World Resources Institute, most scientists agree that between 5 and 10 percent of closed tropical forest species will become extinct each decade at current rates of forest loss and disturbance . This loss amounts to about 100 species a day. 14 Indeed, about one-third of the forests that existed in 1950 have
been cleared, primarily for agriculture, grazing, or firewood collection.15 The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that more than 50 percent of all the Earth's species live in tropical rainforests: A
typical four-square-mile patch of rainforest contains as many as 1,500 species of flowering plants, 750 tree species, 125 mammal species, 400 bird species, 100 reptile species, 60 amphibian species, and 150 butterfly species.16
Environmental collapse causes extinction Diner, Vice chief of Staff, 94

The Judge Advocate General, Vice Chief of Staff, United States Department of the Army Personnel, Plans and Training Office Chief, the -1994 , Colonel David N., United States Army Military Law Review Winter, p. lexis)
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
28
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
29
Poverty Bad- Air Pollution

Poverty causes air pollution Mabogunje, prof. of Geography in Nigeria and former preosdent of International geographic union, 02
(Akin L Mabogunje, chairman of the Development Policy Centre in Ibadan, Nigeria, formerly was Professor of Geography, Dean of the Faculty of the Social Science, and Director of the Planning Studies Programme, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, former President of the International Geographical Union (1980-1984). He served as Chairman of the Committee on Human Settlements of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (1977-79), Jan/Feb 02, Poverty and environmental degradation: Challenges within the global economy, Environment, Vol. 44, Iss. 1, pg. 8) Urban pollution. Urban pollution represents an increasing feature of cities and metropolitan areas in developing countries. It begins with the difficult shelter conditions of squatter settlements, which consist of
makeshift huts on land to which the poor have no ownership rights and which usually lack adequate water supply and sanitation facilities. Air pollution becomes a serious concern in such areas. The dependence of the poor on biomass fuels for cooking and other domestic uses increases the concentration of suspended particulates, which often reach levels that exceed World Health Organization (WHO) standards in areas where the poor are concentrated. The need of the poor for cheap means of transport within urban areas has encouraged the proliferation of highly polluting transportation modes such as single-stroke engine motorcycles. Poorly maintained secondhand vehicles heighten the
level of air pollution in most cities of developing countries.18
29
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
30
Poverty Bad- Water Pollution

Poverty results in water pollution and disease- this kills 3 million a year Mabogunje, prof. of Geography in Nigeria and former preosdent of International geographic union, 02
Contaminated drinking water transmits diseases such as diarrhea, typhoid, and cholera. In developing countries, diarrheal diseases are believed to have killed about 3 million children annually in the early 1990s and 1 million adults and children older than 5 years annually in the mid-1980s.19 The lack of
Water pollution. solid waste management in squatter settlements is also visibly disturbing. These areas generally receive minimal garbage collection service or none at all. For example, in 1993, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, 90 percent of the slum areas did not have regular garbage collection services.20 The problems resulting from such conditions are obvious-odors, disease vectors, pests that are attracted to garbage (including rats, mosquitoes, and flies), and the overflowing drainage channels clogged with garbage. Leachate from decomposing and putrefying garbage contaminates water sources. Because the poorest
areas of cities are generally those that receive the fewest sanitation services, the uncollected solid wastes usually include a significant proportion of fecal matter.21 Water pollution is also a serious problem in areas where farmers have been given fertilizers and pesticides to increase agricultural productivity. In India, pollution caused by the leaching of nitrogen fertilizers has been detected in the ground water in
many areas. In parts of India's Haryana State, for example, well water with nitrate concentrations ranging from 114 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 1,800 mg/L (far above the 45 mg/L national standard) have been reported.22 Pesticides
that governments have supplied to peasant farmers contaminate sources of ground water, endanger local water supplies, and pollute aquatic systems. Indeed, according to a 1990 estimate published by WHO,
occupational pesticide poisoning may affect as many as 25 million people, or 3 percent of the agricultural workforce each year in developing countries. In Africa alone, where some 80 percent of the populace is involved in agriculture, as many as 11 million cases of acute pesticide exposures occur each year.23
30
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
31
Poverty Bad- Global Warming

Poverty exacerbates global warming Mabogunje, prof. of Geography in Nigeria and former preosdent of International geographic union, 02
(Akin L Mabogunje, chairman of the Development Policy Centre in Ibadan, Nigeria, formerly was Professor of Geography, Dean of the Faculty of the Social Science, and Director of the Planning Studies Programme, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, former President of the International Geographical Union (1980-1984). He served as Chairman of the Committee on Human Settlements of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (1977-79), Jan/Feb 02, Poverty and environmental degradation: Challenges within the global economy, Environment, Vol. 44, Iss. 1, pg. 8) Climate change. The melting snows of Kilimanjaro provide dramatic evidence that climate change is already affecting the Earth.24 The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that African countries are especially vulnerable to climate change because much of its agriculture is rain-fed, and it experiences a high frequency of droughts and floods. In particular, grain yields are projected to decline. Coastal settlements in such regions as Egypt, southeastern Africa, the Gulf of Guinea, Senegal, and Gambia will be affected by rising sea levels and coastal erosion. All over the world, the range of infectious disease will likely increase, and
significant extinctions of plant and animal species are projected. Desertification is expected to worsen, and most importantly, the numbers and impact of extreme droughts and floods are expected to grow." All of these projections are made worse by the limited ability of the poor to adapt to climate change.26 Runaway Global Warming causes extinction Tickell, Environmental Researcher, 08
(Oliver Tickell, Campaigner and researcher on climate issues and has contributed pieces to a number of major international media outletshttp, 8/11/08, www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed
much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a fourdegree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes.
Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
31
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
32
Poverty Bad- Environment

Wealth prevents urban sprawl and creates an sustainable environment Huber, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 2000
(Peter Huber, former associate professor at MIT, Supreme Court clerk under Sandra Day OConnor, April 1, 2000, Vital Speeches of the Day Vol. 66, Issue 12, pg. 380, Proquest)
soft green establishment would have us believe that wealth is the enemy of the wilderness. The facts are the opposite. Wealth limits our residential sprawl: it urbanizes us. Wealth makes possible hard technologies, which drastically reduce our agricultural and energy footprints on the land. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, wealth is the only means yet discovered to limit human fecundity. The richer people grow, the fewer children they bear. The city itself is a center of negative population growth. ' Western industrial nations have stabilized their population growth overall. And, of course, it is the wealthy nations, not the poor, that pour their land into wilderness conservation. Wealth is green. Poverty isn't.
The
32
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
33
***SPRAWL***
33
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
34
Poverty Bad- Sprawl

Poverty is the root cause of urban sprawl Downs, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 97
(Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University, Nov/Dec. 1997, Journal of Property Management Vol. 62, Iss. 6; pg. 60, Proquest) This American concentration of poor households within older, centrally located neighborhoods is not an inevitable result of overall population growth, the "laws of nature," or "free-market forces." In fact, it is not found in most other nations. It is a
peculiarly American condition, caused by specific public policies designed to spatially segregate the poor from non-poor households that form a majority in each metropolitan area. Throughout the world, every metropolitan area contains-and must contain for its economic success-a significant percentage of low-income households, whose members perform vital economic roles. They cannot afford to live in high-quality housing-such as new units-without costly public subsidies or spending very large fractions of their income
for housing. So every large metropolitan area must also contain a notable number of sub-standard or overcrowded housing units that provide housing poor households can afford to occupy without subsidies. As the total population of any metropolitan area rises, the number of poor people there must also rise. However, their presence is universally regarded as a fiscal drawback. They generate high public service costs but provide low revenues from property and sales taxes, compared with affluent households. Moreover, low-income neighborhoods are associated with
higher-than-average crime rates and other social maladies. So every locality wants to minimize the number of its poor residents. Furthermore, no localities can significantly redistribute incomes to benefit their poor residents
without driving many of their non-poor residents and firms to other nearby places. Under these circumstances, the American metropolitan development process contains three basic elements that generate high concentrations of minority-group poverty in innercore areas. The first is that the American urban growth process prohibits poor people from living in newly built dwellings. Therefore, most cannot live on the edges of our metropolitan areas where new growth is occurring, but must live in older housing. Throughout the world, as noted above, most poor people can afford only relatively low-quality housing unless subsidized with government funds. In developing nations, the poor build their own new units, or shacks, located in slums or barrios. These are often in new-growth peripheral areas. But American zoning and building codes require all new structures to meet high-quality standards too costly for the poor. In Western Europe, many poor households live in high-quality units that are publicly subsidized and located in new suburban areas. But we provide only enough housing subsidies to house about 20 percent of the poor in high-quality housing. And local opposition frequently prevents those subsidized units from being located in most suburbs. So they are concentrated in older innercity areas. This means most poor people must live in older housing that has "trickled down" from former occupancy by non-poor people. There is nothing inherently wrong with occupying trickled-down units unless they are deteriorated, as they often are. But the older housing in each metropolitan area is naturally concentrated close in. The second cause of concentrated poverty in our metropolitan areas is
exclusionary zoning by suburban communities whose residents do not want poor people living there.
Many suburbs have adopted zoning codes that minimize land for multifamily housing, which is less costly than singlefamily units. Other suburbs have adopted largelot and other rules that prevent lower-cost single-family housing. These are not accidental policies. Such spatial segregation compels low-income people to live together in older, concentrated poverty areas. How Poverty Concentrations Prompt Withdrawal Once poverty concentrations
arise in inner-city neighborhoods, they generate four conditions that have caused millions of households to move out of such areas and that inhibit middle-income households of all ethnic types from moving back into them. The first condition is fear of crime and violence. In fact, crime rates are much higher in inner-city neighborhoods than anywhere else in our society. The second condition is poorquality public schools. They are caused both by the schools' burden of educating high proportions of children from poor households and by dysfunctional public school systems. The third condition is the unwillingness of most white households to live in neighborhoods with more than about one-third minoritygroup households. The fourth condition is the dysfunctional nature of many large public bureaucracies in central cities, such as schools, welfare systems, housing authorities, and the police. The first two conditions result directly from the core-area concentration of
34
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
35
Poverty Bad- Sprawl

poverty. White racial prejudice is related to such concentration because high fractions of minorities are poor. But white
prejudice also contains an intractable, irrational element. These four conditions have contributed to massive out-migration of middle- and upper-income households and viable businesses from older central cities and inner-ring suburbs to new, farther-out suburbs. This out-migration drains fiscal resources from older cities that are saddled with the costs of serving the poor. Thus, the concentration of the poor in these fixed-boundary core areas leads to a selfaggravating downward spiral in the fiscal strength and environmental quality of these communities . A key result of this process is the creation of tremendous social inequities in the quality of environments in different parts of each metropolitan area. Central cities, inner-ring suburbs, and some outerring suburbs have low fiscal resources and highcost burdens, compared with many affluent suburbs. This situation makes a mockery out of our value of "equality of opportunity" across each metro area. True, the growth process is not the only cause of these problems, but it is a crucial and major cause
Sprawl threatens to collapse the ecosystem Bekele, Masters degree in Real Estate Management , 05
(Haregewoin Bekele, Masters degree in Real Estate Management@ Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, Urbanization and Urban Sprawl, Department of Infrastructure Section of Building and Real Estate Economics http://www.infra.kth.se/byfa/publikationer/examensarbeten/2005/294.pdf)
All sprawl leads to loss of limited resource, which is land. Over the years, sprawl has directly contributed to the degradation and decline of natural habitats such as wetlands, woodlands and wildlife. It also reduces farmland and open spaces. Water use and energy consumption will be increased. Sprawl leads to land-use patterns which are unfavourable to the development of sustainable transport modes and hence, increase the use of private car that in turn result in increased trip lengths, congestion, increase in fuel consumption and air pollution. It is in general a threat to ecology. Even though automobile and truck engines have become far cleaner in recent decades, motor vehicle emissions are still the leading sources of air pollution. As
homes and businesses spread further and further apart, local governments are forced to provide for widely spaced services and infrastructure leading to higher costs and increased tax burden.
35
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
36
Poverty Bad- Sprawl

Sprawl causes species extinction Blair, Associate Professor at University of Minnesota, 2004
(Robert B. Blair, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, PhD. @Stanford, 2004, Ecology and Society Vol. 9 No. 5 Article 2 The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Birds at Multiple Levels of Biological Organization, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss5/art2/)
Urban sprawl affects the environment in myriad ways. Although urban expansion has resulted in the conversion
of croplands, pastures, and forests into built environments on a massive scale (Alig and Healy 1987), little is known about the effects of urbanization at any level of biological organization from genes through landscapes. Ecologists have traditionally worked in relatively pristine environments (Cairns 1988) and, consequently, have failed to incorporate humans and their institutions as agents in the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems (McDonnell and Pickett 1990). Although the ecology of urban areas has been an area of investigation for many years, including a paper that appeared in the first issue of Ecology (Huntington 1920), many researchers believed that, for the field of ecology to progress, studies had to occur in areas that were not subject to human pressures (Grimm et al. 2000). This view slowly changed during the 1990s with the publication of the work of Vitousek et al. (1997), which recognized the human domination of Earth's ecosystems, and with the establishment by the U.S. National Science Foundation of urban-based Long-Term Ecological Research sites in Baltimore, Maryland, and Phoenix, Arizona. Growing interest in the ecological functioning of urban areas coincided with the realization that the United States is no longer a rural nation. In 1900, 40% of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, and 60% lived in rural areas. Today, 50% of the population of the United States lives in suburbs, and another 30% lives in cities (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). Migration to the suburbs is also increasing the extent of urban sprawl. Many urban areas are growing larger while the density of their human populations is simultaneously decreasing, with urban areas expanding at about twice the rate of the populations in many cities (Benfield et al. 1999, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2000). Smaller suburban communities actually occupy more
land area than do major metropolitan areas, and migration to suburban communities will increase this difference (Katz and Bradley 1999). For example, of the 9224 km2 of urbanized land in Ohio, 7186 km2 are occupied by
communities with fewer than 50,000 residents, whereas only 2038 km2 are occupied by more populous communities (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). As a result of the growth in urban settlement, approximately 5% of the United States is covered by urban areas, which is more than the area covered by national parks, state parks, and Nature Conservancy preserves combined (Stein et al. 2000, McKinney 2002). Increased urban and suburban development and its subsequent sprawl can lead to huge conservation challenges (McKinney 2002). Urban development increases local extinction rates and the rates of loss of native species (Marzluff 2001). In addition, urban development is likely to lead to the replacement of native species by non-native species (Kowarik 1995, Blair 1996, Blair and Launer 1997, Blair 2001a,b). Although the severity of the disturbance caused by urban sprawl is similar
to that caused by deforestation, it is more permanent, and the affected lands are less likely to revert to predisturbance conditions (McKinney 2002). Environmental collapse causes extinction Diner, Vice chief of Staff, 94
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a
36
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
37
mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind
may be edging closer to the abyss.
37
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
38
***SOFT POWER***
38
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
39
Poverty Bad- Soft Power

Poverty in United States reduces soft power Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor @ Harvard, 02
(Joseph S. Nye, PhD in political science from Harvard. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology, March 7, 2002, The Paradox of American Power, pg. 115)
the connection between cultural divisions and our soft power. A decline in the quality of American cultural life could reduce our soft power if the bitterness of our family fights disgusted others, or if the
Then there's overdramatization of our faults lead others to lower their respect for our national example. Certainly there arc faults to report. Although the United States has made progress in many important respects over the past forty
years, we lag behind Canada, France, Germany, Britain, and Japan in infant mortality, life expectancy, children in poverty, health insurance coverage, homicides, and births out of wedlock. "All too often, the areas in which we lead the industrial world are fields in which we would greatly prefer not to excel, such as rates of homicide and incarceration, percentages of the population in poverty, or per capita costs of health
care.'*1' Even though we are doing better than in the past, we are not doing as well as we could or as some others are.
Such comparisons can be costly for American soft power, but doubly so if they are exaggerated and ampliied by American politicians and intellectuals seeking to score points in domestic battles. Soft Power is key to solving every major impact including environmental collapse and prolif Stanley, Member of the National Security Advisement Board, 07
(Elizabeth Stanley, PhD in Government From Harvard University, Assistant Professor at George Town University, Member of the National Security Advisement Board of Sandia National Laboratories, International perceptions of U.S. Nuclear Policy http://www.prod.sandia.gov/cgibin/techlib/access-control.pl/2007/070903.pdf)
Such reputation effects can have significant impact in terms of gaining international cooperation in addressing global issues that require multilateral solutions and given the interdependent nature of the world today, most issues fall into this category. In contrast to a states hard power (military and economic might), soft power (a states culture, values and institutions) provides an indirect way to influence others. Soft power is an invaluable asset to: (1) keep potential adversaries from gaining international support and winning moderates over to their causes; (2) influence neutral and developing states to support US leadership ; and, (3) convince allies to support and share the international security burden. The United States needs soft power assets (including the moral high ground) to solve these problems multilaterally and proactively. For example, one of the wicked problems (problems having complex, adaptive, unpredictable components) that US nuclear policy and posture is trying to address is global proliferation of WMD. Yet, WMD proliferation is not a problem that the United States can address effectively alone. To address global proliferation concerns, the United States needs the rest of the world to participate in the process. Given how complex the WMD proliferation problem is, this requires not only other international actors to commit to solving the problem with us but that they have a similar understanding of what the problem is. This common problem definition is not possible when the rest of the world has negative perceptions of the United States, when US policies and actions (in the nuclear and non-nuclear arenas) are perceived as unilateral and hypocritical.
Indeed, this paper suggests that many international actors appear to view US policy and actions as one of the contributors to the WMD proliferation problem. In other words, US actions actually affect how other states define the problem, and how they define the problem affects what they believe the right solution is. Given their different understanding, it is not surprising that the wicked problem becomes even thornier to address. In short, how other international actors perceive US policies and actions matters a great deal in their decisions about how much they will cooperate on the US policy goal of
39
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
40
non-proliferation. (continued) How important is soft power, anyway? Given its vast conventional military power, does the United States even need soft power?

Some analysts argue that US military predominance is both possible and desirable over the long term, and thus soft power is not important. But a growing consensus disagrees. These analysts argue that soft power is critical for four reasons. First, soft power is invaluable for keeping potential adversaries from gaining international support, for winning the peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for convincing moderates to refrain from supporting extremist terrorist groups. Second, soft power helps influence neutral and developing states to support US global leadership. Third, soft power is also important for convincing allies and partners to share the international security burden.14 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, given the increasing interdependence and globalization of the world system, soft power is critical for addressing most security threats the United States faces today. Most global security threats are impossible to be countered by a single state alone. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation, failed and failing states, conflicts over access to resources, are not confined to any one state. In addition, disease, demographic shifts, environmental degradation and global warming will have negative security implications as well.15 All of these potential threats share four traits: (1) they are best addressed proactively, rather than after they develop into full-blown crises; (2) they require multi-lateral approaches, often under the umbrella of an international institution; (3) they are not candidates for a quick fix, but rather require multi-year, or multi-decade solutions; and, (4) they are wicked problems. Given these four traits, soft power is critical for helping to secure the international, multi-lateral cooperation that will be necessary to address such threats effectively.
40
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
41

Domestic poverty reduction is crucial to soft power Nye, 2 (Joseph- PhD in political science from Harvard, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the
National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology, The Paradox Of American Power: Why The World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone, 2002, http://books.google.com/books? id=JWW5dYlH1P0C&dq=united+states+and+poverty+rate+and+soft+power&source=gbs_navlinks_s The area where the American model clearly excelled was in job creation, with less than half the rate of unremplyment in germany (though about the same as Japan). As The Economist noted, overall, however, the notion that the American economy stands on top of the world is questionable. It is also vulnerable to criticism because of its wider income inequality. It is often asserted that America has traded higher inequality for faster growth; yet over the past decade, average incomes have risen by similar amounts in the three countries despite Americas bigger income differentialsThe poorest 20% in Japan are about 50% better off than Americas poorest
20%. The lowest 10% percent of people in Americas income distribution had only the thirteenth highest average income when compared with relatively poor people in other advanced economies. The superior job performance of the American economy will not lead Europeans and theirs to see it as the best model unless we alleviate the effects of inequality. How we deal at home with those who are left behind has an important effect on our soft power. Soft power is key to global cooperation global instability and wars are inevitable without U.S. soft power. REIFFEL 05 Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution (Lex, The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out: Americans Serving Overseas, 12-27-2005, www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051207rieffel.pdf)
I. Introduction: Overseas Service as a Soft Instrument of Power The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital self interests without making the rest of the world uncomfortable. In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused on helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies. The USA met this immense challenge successfully, by and large, and it gained friends in the process. By contrast, the first five years of the new millennium have been mostly downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter of hours from gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the 1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to new heights. However, the feeling of global solidarity quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led coalition. A major poll measuring the attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which has only partially recovered since then.1 The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the world. It cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions that had been promoted for decades as models for other countries. Internal pressure to turn Americas back on the rest of the world is likely to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic problems such as the growing number of Americans without health insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use its overwhelming military power to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the worlds population and pose the gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put the USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run. Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of international institutions capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly seen to be unsustainable. The limitations of hard instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq. Military power can dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on soft instruments.2
41
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
42

Domestic poverty reduction establishes US leadership- key to solve global issues Edwards, 07 (John, US Senator and director for the Center for Poverty, Work & Opportunity at the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill Restoring the American Dream: Fighting Poverty and Strengthening the Middle Class, The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice. Iowa City: Spring 2007. pg. 383) But there is another reason why it is important that we do something about poverty in America . That picture that you saw on your television screens, the picture coming out of New Orleans? You are not the only ones who saw it-the entire world saw it. I do a lot of traveling these days, and everybody knows what happened on the Gulf Coast all around the world. Here is their reaction: "How can it be, in the richest nation on the planet, the most powerful nation on the planet, that those conditions existed in New Orleans? What are you going to do about it?" If we actually want to be the model for the rest of the world, then we have to do something about poverty in America, because the world knows about it now. It is no secret. They know about it, and
they want to know: "What are you going to do about it? Are you actually going to do something about it?" I saw a publication overseas right after the hurricane hit, and it had pictures of victims of the hurricane from the Lower Ninth Ward. The headline read "The Shaming of America." If we want to be the country that represents the model for the rest of the world-and we used to be-if we want to be the light-and we used to be the light-then we have to demonstrate what we care about, what our priorities are, and that we patriotically about something other than war. We need to be willing to act patriotically about what is good for our country and not just out of self-interest. America is better than this-and you know it. We did not use to be the country of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. We were the country that everybody looked up to and respected. They wanted
to be like the United States of America. They wanted to be like the American people. That is who we are at our best. What do we do about the millions of Americans who are living in poverty? What do we do about the forty-six, nearly forty-seven million people who do not have health care coverage? Our actions demonstrate to the world what we care about. And I want to add-it is not specifically on topic, but it fits into the bigger context of how all these things are connected-look at what is happening on your television screens today. The Hezbollah fighting the Israelis and Hamas launching missiles out of Gaza into Israel. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, going before the United Nations to denounce the United States. The same man is doing everything in his power to get a nuclear weapon. The North Koreans are testing nuclear weapons and testing missiles. Over the last five or six years, we see Russia going from a democracy to an autocracy. All of this is happening right in front of us. It is right in front of us. And we react. What is so important for us to understand as a nation is that we are the most powerful nation on this planet. We are the preeminent power
in the world today. We are the only superpower. But you cannot lead simply by being powerful. It is not enough. You have to be powerful, but you have to be something else. You have to be moral and just. You have to be the nation that the rest of the world looks up to. You have to have the moral authority to lead. And you do not have to take my word for this-it is clear. If anything demonstrates this, it is the last six years. You look at what is happening in the world today. You look at every single crisis, like the Hezbollah fighting the Israelis that I mentioned a few minutes ago or Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. We go to the United Nations security Council, to try to get consensus, but people do not rally around the United States of America. And when they do not, there is no leadership. There is no natural leader in the world, except us. And when we do not show that we care not only about ourselves but that we actually, as the most powerful nation on the planet, care about humanity, then people in other countries will not rally around us. They will not. This is not a feel-good thing.
If you want your children to grow up in a safe America, in a safe world, then you want to live in a world where America is the great, shining example. A world where we are the place everyone looks to. A world where everyone says, "The United States of America-they are the ones that come to the rescue of the downtrodden." When an earthquake hits, here comes the United States. Uganda, which I just came back from, has an extraordinary humanitarian crisis. There has been a civil war for twenty years. Between one and two million people are housed in less-than-humane camps in northern Uganda. Kids are being abducted and forced into the military, the resistance army, the Lord's Resistance Army-a great name-and forced to
42
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
43
Poverty bad- soft power

kill their parents and their brothers and sisters. This genocide continues to go on in Darfur and western Sudan. The United States declares it a genocide and does nothing.
We have so many opportunities to show who we really are. We can demonstrate who we are at home by not turning our backs on millions of our own people who live in poverty . But we have lots of chances
around the world to show what the character of the United States is. There will be lots of children born in Africa with AIDS because their mothers cannot afford a four dollar dose of medicine. How can we let that happen? How can we call
ourselves moral and just and allow that to happen? Right in front of us, we know what is going on, and we turn our backs. It is not right. We are better than this. And you know it. You do not need me to say it. You know it.
The world needs to see our better side, and it matters to us. In a very selfish way, it matters to us. Will there always be people who denounce us? Of course. There are dangerous human beings. There are extremists in the world, and there are dangerous nation-states. That is not the question. The question is: "When bad things happen, when crises occur, will the rest of the world rally around the United States of America?" Because they believe in us; because they believe in what we represent-both what we do at home and what we do in the rest of the world? There is an awful lot at stake. It is not hyperbole to say that the future of the world is at stake, because it is.
43
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
44

Poverty reduction solves soft power Demissie, 8 (Meaza, Associate Program Manager at CRDF, Bread for the World Institute, Legal Empowerment and Poverty
Reduction April 11, 2008 http://www.institutenotes.org/2008/04/legal-empowerme.html#more) This week the Center for American Progress and Georgetown Law Center organized an event titled The future of Human Rights. In general, the theme of the conference was on the importance of soft power to improve the
credibility of United States and creating a better world. There was a consensus among most of the participants and the presenters that more attention should be given to development assistance, particularly to secure human rights, improve education and provide assistance to prevent and help those affected by diseases in disadvantaged and underprivileged areas and groups. The event was filled with high profile presenters and speakers including former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright.
It was my first time seeing her in person and I found her speech compelling. Her speech started with similar tone with what was reflected in the opening video which reflects how United States favorability rating have declined in the past decade and how it can be changed. Additionally, she outlined what the next president should do in order to restore the credibility of the United States, boycotting the Olympics was not among her recommendations. She did offer more presence and higher level involvement in the international development is key for United States to increase its credibility. She also outlined the three access of evil as ignorance, poverty and disease.
44
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
45
***OBESITY***
45
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
46
Poverty Bad- Obesity Module

Poverty causes obesity William Bernstein, 8 economic and investment writer and neurologist (The New York Times, How Big of a Deal Is Income
Inequality? A Guest Post Auguest 27, 2008 http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/how-big-of-a-deal-is-incomeinequality-a-guest-blog/) Further, a growing body of research reveals that the social and medical costs of inequality are high . Here is the tiniest of samplings: Among both American states and Canadian provinces, homicide rates closely track income inequality, even after the absolute level of income itself is carefully controlled for. That homicide is not driven by poverty alone is demonstrated by Canada, where, because of aggressive redistributive policies, the poorest provinces have the lowest inequalities and also the lowest number of violent deaths. It is becoming increasingly obvious among obesity researchers that the primary underlying factors in this epidemic are social class and income inequality.
It is no accident that the U.S., with the highest income inequality among the worlds developed nations, also has the highest incidence of obesity and its attendant comorbidities: diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease. Obesity may also be the reason that the U.S., ostensibly the worlds wealthiest nation, ranks 29th in life expectancy, right behind Jordan and Bosnia. Those who think that these problems are primarily the result of voluntary lifestyle choices should reflect on the difficulty of providing a family of four with fresh fruits and vegetables on a minimum wage salary. Obesity causes extinction.
Sunday Tribune 02 (Sunday Tribune, September 15, 2002, http://www.sundayherald.com/27667) Orbach and Bovey may not agree about much, but both share at least once conviction -- that fat is a highly emotional issue. It is also, of course, about big business profiting and from artery-clogging trash. It's about sedentary lifestyles, TV dinners, soft drinks machines in school corridors and burger chains peddling collect-em-all toys to two years old. It's about the scientific fact that our minds and bodies, hard-wired to survive famine and scarcity, haven't yet learned to cope with the shock of plenty. If we are to survive as a species, we are going to have to drastically rethink our lifestyles -- being more active and eating less of the wrong kinds of foods. That will not be easy and -- following Bovey's logic -- it will be toughest of all for those whose lives are horrible. Shape-up bullying will, as Orbach has explained, only make them feel more hopeless.No, we don't want a country full of 30stone giants. But Perhaps we have to be prepared to assert people's right to be that size. Certainly, we must lay off the lard-ass jibes that have characterized much of the obesity debate. Otherwise we will never create climate of compassion in which people feel good enough about themselves to chance. And the West's fastest-growing health problem will just keep getting bigger.
46
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
47
Obesity Impact- Econ

Lack of nutrition put immense strains on the economy even in times of prosperity.
Ludwig, M.D, Founding Director of the Optimal Weight for Life and Pollack, Ph.D, faculty chair of the Center for Health Administration Studies, 7-22
THE ONSET OF A MAJOR RECESSION PLACES THE ECO-nomic correlates of obesity into sharp relief. Even in good economic times, obesity imposes great financial burden on society in the form of higher medical costs and lower worker productivity. The economic downturn can be expected to reduce nutrition quality and physical activity, worsening obesity prevalence when society is least able to bear the escalating financial burden. Yet this crisis also offers unprecedented opportunity. The economic stimulus
under consideration in Washington could help launch a comprehensive national obesity initiative with immediate public health benefits, while laying the foundations for economic well-being into the 21st century.
47
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
48
***ECONOMY***
48
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
49
Poverty Bad- Econ Module

Poverty causes economic decline Ehrenreich, 8 (Barbara, noted columnist on poverty, Poverty affects citizenship, economy, says Ehrenreich March 18, 2008,
http://www.bucknell.edu/x40706.xml)
Another result of low-wage jobs is a failing economy on the brink of recession, she said. A major turning point was the wave of defaults on sub-prime mortgages that started this past summer. The defaults led to depressed consumption, which "precipitated global financial turmoil," she said. "The chronically poor and a lot of the shaky middle class have become a tripwire for the American economy," Ehrenreich said, adding, "We have to realize that plenty of people have been living in a recession for a long, long time."
Ehrenreich said there are solutions but politicians must be willing to pay for them. She recommended that the government help generate jobs in the "green" industries and in environmental cleanup and offer, among other benefits, a higher minimum wage, universal health insurance, and subsidized housing to help the poor and middle class advance.
Continued economic decline causes WWIII Mead, 9 Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russell, Only Makes You Stronger, The New Republic, 2/4/09, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)
The damage to China's position is more subtle. The crisis has not--yet--led to the nightmare scenario that China-watchers fear: a recession or slowdown producing the kind of social unrest that could challenge the government. That may still come to pass--the recent economic news from China has been consistently worse than most experts predicted--but, even if the worst case is avoided, the financial crisis has nevertheless had significant effects. For one thing, it has reminded China that its growth remains dependent on the health of the U.S. economy. For another, it has shown that China's modernization is likely to be long, dangerous, and complex rather than fast and sweet, as some assumed. In the lead-up to last summer's Beijing Olympics, talk of a Chinese bid to challenge America's global position reached fever pitch, and the inexorable rise of China is one reason why so many commentators are fretting about the "post-American era." But suggestions that China could grow at, say, 10 percent annually for the next 30 years were already looking premature before the economic downturn. (In late 2007, the World Bank slashed its estimate of China's GDP by 40 percent, citing inaccuracies in the methods used to calculate purchasing power parity.) And the financial crisis makes it certain that China's growth is likely to be much slower during some of those years. Already exports are falling, unemployment is rising, and the Shanghai stock market is down about 60 percent. At the same time, Beijing will have to devote more resources and more attention to stabilizing Chinese society, building a national health care system, providing a social security net, and caring for an aging population, which, thanks to the one-child policy, will need massive help from the government to support itself in old age. Doing so will leave China fewer resources for military build-ups and foreign adventures. As the crisis has forcefully reminded Americans, creating and regulating a functional and flexible financial system is difficult. Every other country in the world has experienced significant financial crises while building such systems, and China is unlikely to be an exception. All this means that China's rise looks increasingly like a gradual process. A deceleration in China's long-term growth rate would postpone indefinitely the date when China could emerge as a peer competitor to the United States. The present global distribution of power could be changing slowly, if at all. The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is that the current crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international economy will plunge China into a major economic downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net. The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle class. The political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi and communist politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as nervous investors moved their money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody knows what will happen if the growth stops. India's future is also a question. Support for global integration is a fairly recent development in India, and many serious Indians remain skeptical of it. While India's 60-year-old democratic system has resisted many shocks, a deep economic recession in a country where mass poverty and even hunger are still major
49
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
50
concerns could undermine political order, long-term growth, and India's attitude toward the United States and global economic integration. The violent Naxalite insurrection plaguing a significant swath of the country could get worse; (Continues)
Poverty Bad- Econ Module

(continues) religious extremism among both Hindus and Muslims could further polarize Indian politics; and India's economic miracle could be nipped in the bud. If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed history , even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection.
Success in Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often
firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established
50
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
51
Ext- Poverty bad- Econ

Poverty hurts the economy Bell, 8 (Kate- Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Head of Policy and Research for One Parent Families Center for
American Progress, Fighting Poverty to Stabilize the Economy http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/ poverty_hearing.html/print.html) Chair Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) opened the meeting thanking Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) for having requested the hearing, before drawing attention to the current economic crisis. The crisis on Wall Street might
seem distant from poverty concerns, but the fate of the economy is clearly linked with poverty levels, particularly when unemployment rises. We need economic solutions that help every day Americansnot just Wall
Street.
Poverty has risen in recent years. Dr. Rebecca Blank of the Brookings Institute pointed, for example, to recently
released 2007 poverty figures showing that poverty rose since 2006, and figures for 2008 are likely to be even worse.
The current crisis should signal to lawmakers that we need to place greater focus on efforts to tackle poverty. Angela Glover Blackwell, CEO of Policylink, and chair of the Center for American Progresss own task force on poverty, emphasized the importance of the goal to cut poverty in half in 10 years.
Explaining the recommendations in the task forces report, she emphasized the principles on which the report is based: promoting decent work, providing opportunity for all, ensuring economic security, and helping people to build wealth. These goals are achievable. Experts at the hearing proposed a variety of solutions for helping American families and tackling poverty. Rep. Maloney drew attention to the British governments commitment to halve child poverty in 10 years and end it in a generation. Parenthood should not equal poverty, she said, arguing for action to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, raise the national minimum wage, guarantee childcare assistance, and encourage flexible working.
51
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
52
Ext- hurts the economy

Poverty hurts the economy -crime and health costs, decreased productivity Holzer et al, 7 (Harry Holzer- Professor of Public Policy @ Georgetown, Diane Schanzenbach- economist on the faculty of the
Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, Ph.D. in economics from Princeton, Greg Duncan- Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research and the Director of the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research @ Northwester The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/poverty_report.pdf, January 24, 2007) But there is also an economic case for reducing child poverty. When children grow up in poverty, they are somewhat more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, which in turn reflects lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat more likely to engage in crime (though thats not the case for the vast majority) and to have poor health later in life. Their reduced productive activity generates a direct loss of goods and services to the U.S. economy. Whats more, any crime in which they engage
imposes large monetary and other personal costs on their victims, as well as the costs to the taxpayer of administering our huge criminal justice system. And their poor health generates illness and early mortality which not only require large healthcare expenditures, but also impede productivity and ultimately reduce their quality and quantity of life.
In this paper, we review a range of rigorous research studies that estimate the average statistical relationships between children growing up in poverty and their earnings, propensity to commit crime, and quality of health later in life. We also review estimates of the costs that crime and poor health per person impose on the economy. Then we aggregate all of these average costs per poor child across the total number of children growing up in poverty in the U.S. to estimate the aggregate costs of child poverty to the U.S. economy. We had to make a number of critical assumptions about how to define and measure poverty, what level of income to use as a non-poverty benchmark, and which effects are really caused by growing up in poverty and not simply correlated with it. Wherever possible, we made conservative assumptions, in order to generate lower-bound estimates. The upshot: Our results suggest that the costs to the U.S. associated with childhood poverty total about $500B per year, or the equivalent of nearly 4 percent of GDP. More specifically, we estimate that childhood poverty each year: Reduces productivity and economic output by about 1.3 percent
of GDP Raises the costs of crime by 1.3 percent of GDP Raises health expenditures and reduces the value of health by 1.2 percent of GDP. If anything, these estimates almost certainly understate the true costs of poverty to the U.S. economy. For one thing, they omit the costs associated with poor adults who did not grow up poor as children. They ignore all other costs that poverty might impose on the nation besides those associated with low productivity, crime, and healthsuch as environmental costs and much of the suffering of the poor themselves.
52
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
53 Ext- hurts economy Poverty hurts the economyHolzer et al, 7 (Harry Holzer- Professor of Public Policy @ Georgetown, Diane Schanzenbach- economist on the faculty of the
Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, Ph.D. in economics from Princeton, Greg Duncan- Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research and the Director of the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research @ Northwester The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/poverty_report.pdf, January 24, 2007) Others argue for poverty reduction on economic grounds. In this view, poverty
burdens the rest of U.S. society and robs it of some of its productive potential. The economic costs of poverty to society include certain public expenditures on poor families, especially for conditions and behaviorssuch as poor health and crime
associated with the poor. Costs borne by victims of crime are examples of private expenditures and losses for the nonpoor that should count as burdens as well. Moreover, the income that the poor might have earned represents a loss of productive capacity and output that ultimately reduces the aggregate value of our economy. By this argument, it is not only fair and just to reduce poverty in the U.S., but may be in the nations material selfinterest as well. When viewed in this economic way, expenditures on poverty reduction can be viewed as public or social investments, which generate returns to society over time in the form of higher real gross domestic product (GDP), reduced expenditures on crime or health care problems, reduced costs borne by crime victims or those in poor health, and improvements in everyones quality of life in a wide variety of other ways as well. To make the case for these investments, we need to estimate the social costs associated with poverty, as well as some sense of the returns on any investments in poverty alleviation. This paper focuses on the economic and social costs of poverty. We attempt to quantify the overall costs to U.S. society of having children grow up in povertyboth in the form of lost economic productivity and earnings as adults, and also as additional costs associated with higher crime and poorer health later in life. Before presenting our estimates, we review our conceptual framework and its limitations (Section II). We present our estimates in Sections III and IV, and conclude in Section V with some thoughts and implications. All told, we estimate that the costs to America
associated with childhood poverty total $500 billion per yearthe equivalent of nearly 4 percent of GDP. In other words, we could raise our overall consumption of goods and services and our quality of life by about a half trillion dollars a year if childhood poverty were eliminated. If anything, this calculation likely
understates the true annual losses associated with U.S. poverty.
53
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
54

Poverty costs the equivalent of 4% of the US GDP Holzer et al, 7 (Harry Holzer- Professor of Public Policy @ Georgetown, Diane Schanzenbach- economist on the faculty of the
Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, Ph.D. in economics from Princeton, Greg Duncan- Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research and the Director of the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research @ Northwester The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/poverty_report.pdf, January 24, 2007)
Summing the costs of foregone earnings and productivity, high crime rates and poor health associated with adults who grew up in poor households, we estimate the economic costs of U.S. poverty to be: Foregone earnings: 1.3 percent GDP Crime: 1.3 percent GDP Health: 1.2 percent GDP Total: 3.8 percent GDP Thus, our best estimates suggest that childhood poverty imposes costs on American society equal to nearly four percent of GDP, or about $500B per year. In other words, the total value of our production of goods and services and our quality of life in America might rise by about a half trillion dollars annually if all of our poor children were instead growing up in non-poor households. Of course, any such estimates are highly uncertain.
In many casesespecially our attempts to attribute these costs to their hereditary and environmental componentsthe range of estimates we found in the relevant literatures was often very high. In these cases, we rely on our best judgments (or those of scholars whom we respect) to generate the most plausible point estimates. Of course, the true estimates in these cases might be higher or lower than the numbers we use. We cannot be certain that the effects we observe are driven by absolute or relative differences in parental income (or the rationing of a limited number of good jobs on the demand side of the economy irrespective of the supply of skills), though these issues might affect the policy implications derived from this work. On the other hand, we have good reason to believe that, if anything, our estimates understate the true costs of poverty to the U.S., and therefore should be considered lower bounds to the true effects. For one thing, we focus only on the effects of childhood poverty on subsequent outcomes for youth and adults, rather than poverty among adults who were not poor as children. We focus only on three components of costs (foregone output, crime, and health), and ignore others that are harder to quantify. For instance, the others might include environmental costssuch as the blight of poor urban neighborhoods, and the costs of sprawl generated by those who flee this blight when moving to the suburbs and exurbs in our metropolitan areas. Our calculations also omit (except in the area of health) a whole range of important nonpecuniary costsmostly borne by the poor themselvesthat reflect the psychic costs and scars of unfulfilled potential, pain, and grief in their lives. Even regarding the issues of foregone earnings, crime, and poor health, our estimates likely understate the true costs of poverty. Our adjustments for underreporting of crime in survey data and for the value of life when computing lost health capital use calculations that are at the lower ends of the ranges of credible estimates in the literature. Since our estimates of foregone earnings are based almost exclusively on those who participate at least marginally in the labor force each year, the experiences of those who do notbecause of disability, early mortality, or other factorsare not captured in those estimates; nor are certain categories of additional public expenditures, such as on disability and Social Security payments. And our estimates of the impacts of low family income mostly capture permanent income effects, rather than those transitory effects during early childhood years that could have important negative long-term effects on them as well. What does all of this imply for public policy? The high costs of poverty to the U.S. clearly imply that the potential returns to effective anti-poverty strategies might be high as well. Of course, because we defined the environmental components of poverty so broadly, and we did not try to sort out the specific mechanisms through which poverty operates on children, the range of antipoverty policies that could be effective at reducing these costs is very wide. The creation of higher-wage jobs (through higher minimum wage, more collective bargaining, etc.), income supplementation (especially for working parents, along the lines of the EITC or earnings disregards for welfare recipients), education and training policies (including early education, class-size reduction, teacher training, or other reforms), neighborhood revitalization and housing mobility, marriage promotion, and faith-based initiatives might all potentially be useful in reducing those costs. In each case, rigorous statistical evidence will continue to be needed to determine exactly what works or does not work. But the high costs of poverty to the U.S. also suggest that the
investment of some significant resources in poverty reduction might be more socially cost-effective over time than we previously thought. This view is consistent with some recent calculations by Dickens and Sawhill (2006) suggesting
that, if we made high-quality pre-kindergarten programs universally available to children, the expected returns over time might easily dwarf the costs. Indeed, their preferred calculations suggest, in steady state, such a program would increase GDP by 3.7 percent annually.35 Interestingly, this magnitude suggests that very high-quality early childhood efforts could overcome a very large part, though perhaps not all, of the costs of poverty to the U.S. that we estimate. And other investments, such as those which make the
54
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
55
EITC more generous to working poor families, might have important positive effects as well (according to Dahl and Lochner, and Morris et al., op cit.) At a minimum, the high costs that childhood poverty imposes on the U.S. imply that we
should work hard to identify cost-effective strategies that reduce such poverty, and we should not hesitate to invest significant resources in such efforts when they are identified. In the meantime, a great deal of experimentation and
evaluation in poverty-reduction is clearly warranted.
55
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
56

Poverty reduction solves economic growth Rodick, 2k (Dani, Professor of International Political Economy @ Harvard, Finance & Development Growth and Poverty
Reduction: What Are the Real Questions? http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/poverty.PDF)
Is poverty reduction good for growth? Again, generally yes. It is hard to think of cases where absolute poverty levels have declined significantly without accompanying high growth rates. Just as one can
imagine growth occurring without any poverty reduction, in theory one can imagine a strategy of poverty reduction that relies exclusively on redistribution from the rich or the middle classes. But as an empirical matter, one would be hard pressed to find real-world instances of this. As I discuss below, policies that are effective in increasing the
incomes of the poor--such as investments in primary education, rural infrastructure, health, and nutrition--are also policies that enhance the productive capacity of the economy in aggregate. This is another fact that is reflected in the observed stability of income distribution measures over time.
56
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
57

Poverty reduction are key to growth Spagnoli, 8 (Filip, writer/philosopher, Ph. D. from the University of Brussels in Philosophy, Human Rights Facts (50): Poverty
and Economic Growth July 18, 2008, http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/human-rights-facts-50-poverty-and-economicgrowth/) However, there is a strong correlation between these measurements. As an empirical matter, economic growth (annual growth in GDP per capita) and poverty reduction go hand in hand. Since growth and poverty reduction go hand in hand, it is of the utmost importance that those who care about poverty reduction do everything possible to promote economic growth. Even though our knowledge about the kinds of policies that stimulate growth is limited, we know that some things in some circumstances drive economic growth and others do not. Good institutions, good education, investments, respect for human rights and the rule of law, free markets etc. are generally considered to be good for growth. This doesnt mean that economic growth is all that matters, that poverty reduction follows automatically from growth or that only policies that are targeted on growth can generate poverty reduction. This kind of invisible hand theory, or trickle down theory has been discredited. Other policies such as redistribution are also necessary for poverty reduction. Policies specifically aimed at poverty reduction can even benefit growth. Its interesting to note that poverty reduction is one of the drivers of growth. So the causation goes both ways, as is often the case in correlations. Policies that are effective in increasing the incomes of the poorsuch as
investments in primary education, rural infrastructure, health, and nutritionare also policies that enhance the productive capacity of the economy in aggregate . (source) So specific policy measures aimed at improving the lives of the poor are necessary. An exclusive focus on fostering growth is wrong. One could even say that the focus on the poor is the priority, and that measures aimed at growth are
only a means to help the poor, and only one means among many. This has become known as the difference principle of John Rawls: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the leastadvantaged members of society.
57
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
58

Poverty prevents the development of skilled labor and reduces workforce participation Nilsen, 07 Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office (Sigurd,
CQ Congressional Testimony, The Economic And Societal Costs Of Poverty, 1/24, lexis) Economic research
shows that poverty is associated with a number of adverse outcomes for individuals, such as poor health, crime, and reduced labor market participation, and has a negative impact on the economic growth rate. Some research suggests that adverse health outcomes are due, in part, to limited access to health care as well as exposure to environmental hazards and engaging in risky behaviors . The economic research we reviewed also suggests that poverty is associated with higher levels of certain types of crime. The relationship between poverty and adverse outcomes for individuals is complex, in part because most variables,
like health status, can be both a cause and a result of poverty. Regardless of whether poverty is a cause or an effect, however, the conditions associated with poverty can work against the development of human capital-that
is the ability of individuals to remain healthy and develop the skills, abilities, knowledge, and habits necessary to fully participate in the labor force. Human capital development is considered one of the fundamental drivers of economic growth. An educated labor force, for example, is better at learning, creating, and implementing new technologies.
Economic theory suggests that when poverty affects a significant portion of the population, these effects can extend to the society at large and produce slower rates of growth. Though limited, empirical research has demonstrated that
higher rates of poverty are associated with lower rates of growth in the economy as a whole. Poverty undermines overall labor productivity and has significant effects on the GDP
Center for American Progress, 07 (From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half, Report and Recommendations of the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty, April, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf
Addressing poverty and economic security takes on greater urgency in the new economy. Employment for millions is now less secure than at any point in the post-World War II era. Jobs are increasingly unlikely
to provide health care coverage and guaranteed pensions. The typical U.S. worker will change jobs numerous times over his or her working years and must adapt to rapid technological change. One-quarter of all jobs in the U.S. economy do not pay enough to support a family of four above the poverty line. It is in our nations interest that those jobs be filled
and that employment rates be high. It is not in our nations interest that people working in these jobs be confined to poverty. In the global economy, the greatest potential for success turns on having an educated, healthy, adaptable workforce. It is in all of our interests that children grow up under conditions that prepare them for the economy of the future. Yet an estimated eight percent of all children and 28 percent of African-American children
spend at least 11 years of childhood in poverty.5 In The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: The Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor, Harry Holzer, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Greg Duncan, and Jens Ludwig conclude that allowing children to grow up in
persistent poverty costs our economy $500 billion dollars per year in lost adult productivity and wages, increased crime, and higher health expenditures.6 Holzer and his co-authors explain that children who grow up in poverty are more likely than non-poor children to have low earnings as adults, reflecting lower workforce productivity. They are also somewhat
more likely to engage in crime (though that is not the case for the vast majority) and to have poor health later in life. Holzer and co-authors explain: Our results suggest that the costs to the U.S. associated with childhood poverty total about $500 billion per year, or the equivalent of nearly 4percent of Gross Domestic Product. More specifically, we estimate that childhood
poverty each year: Reduces productivity and economic output by about 1.3percent of GDP
58
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
59 Raises the costs of crime by 1.3percent of GDP Raises health expenditures and reduces the value of health by 1.2percent of GDP.
Holzer and his co-authors emphasize that these estimates almost certainly understate the true costs of poverty to the U.S. economy. They omit the costs associated with poor adults who did not grow up poor as children. They do not count all of the other costs that poverty might impose on the nation, such as environmental impacts and much of the suffering of the poor themselves.
Reducing poverty would allow more people to contribute to the economic and civic life of the nation, strengthening our economy and fortifying our democracy.
59
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
60
Ext- stops economic reform

Wealth inequality prevents economic reform Rodrguez, 2k (Francisco, Professor of Economics @ University of Maryland, A Background Note for the World Development
Report 2000, Inequality, Economic Growth and Economic Performance http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resou rces/WDR/ Background/rodriguez.pdf)
Inequality can be harmful to long run economic growth by making economic reforms less plausible . Inequality can reduce the base of support for fundamental structural transformations necessary to embark on a path of high growth. The basic reason is that inequality tends to result in polarized societies and polarized societies may be in a weaker position to undertake fundamental economic reforms.
Formal models of reform with implications for the relationship with inequality are provided by Alesina and Drazen (1993) (henceforth AD) and Fernandez and Rodrik (1993) (henceforth FR). In the AD model two groups decide on whether to adopt a program of measures necessary to stabilize an economy. These groups may decide to inefficiently delay
the stabilization in hopes that the other group will decide to concede and carry the brunt of the stabilizations costs. AD prove that the time that transpires before the stabilization actually takes place (that is, before a
group decides to concede) is increasing in the inequality in the distributions of the gains. FR have shown that individual specific uncertainty can be a good reason for why reforms are not enacted: even if individuals know that the gains will on average outweigh the losses, a majority of them can have what are in expectation negative gains, even if, when the uncertainty is resolved, they may form part of a coalition that supports the reforms ex-post. Again, here inequality in the distribution of the gains is vital: if gains are equitably distributed, then all individuals can be certain to have
the same gains, which would be positive if the reform is efficient; therefore they would unanimously support the reform.
60
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
61
AT: income/efficiency tradeoff

Ramirez, 4 - Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law and Director of the Washburn Business and Transactional Law
Center (Steven, Bearing the Costs of Racial Inequality: Brown and the Myth of the Equality/Efficiency Trade-Off http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.4426347665844368&bhcp=1)
Economists now recognize that whatever the microeconomic efficiency of inequality, it impairs macroeconomic performance, leading [*94] to reduced growth. n40 As of 2004, it was clear that among economists engaged in the study of growth, there was a "growing consensus that countries with relatively egalitarian distribution of assets and incomes tend to grow faster." n41 This consensus emerged
coincident with the development of endogenous growth theory in the 1990s; several studies of national economic growth from large cross-sections of countries have examined the impact of inequality. n42 "The picture they draw is impressively unambiguous, since they all suggest that greater inequality reduces the rate of growth." n43 These cross-country regressions of GDP growth on inequality seemingly reach the same conclusion regardless of the precise measure of inequality utilized or whether developed or less-developed economies are studied. n44 Thus, the proposition that inequality hinders growth has been tested empirically in a variety of differing contexts. In 1994, Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrik regressed the average growth rate for differing sets of countries from 1960 to 1985 on the Gini coefficient n45 (a [*95] measure of inequality) of income and of land. Both variables had a negative impact on growth, even after controlling for per capita income and primary school enrollment in 1960. n46 Torsten Persson and Guido Tabelli regressed the GDP growth on income inequality in a narrow cross-section of nine developed countries from 1830 to 1985 and a broad cross-section of fifty-six less-developed nations from 1960 to 1985. For the broader cross-section, they found that a greater share of income in the middle quintile of income distribution was robustly and significantly associated with higher growth. n47 From the more narrow cross-section they found that countries with more income concentrated in the top quintile suffered retarded growth. n48 "We can summarize our tentative conclusion in a simple aphorism: inequality is harmful for growth." n49 Roberto Perotti regressed growth on a wide variety of factors including inequality in a large cross-section of developed economies over a period of several decades; he also found a positive association between equality and growth. n50
61
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
62
AT: Wealth gap growth

Wealth inequality hinders growth William Bernstein, 8 economic and investment writer and neurologist (The New York Times, How Big of a Deal Is Income
Inequality? A Guest Post Auguest 27, 2008 http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/how-big-of-a-deal-is-incomeinequality-a-guest-blog/) Worse, extreme income and wealth inequality alone may hinder growth. After all respect for property rights is really, in most cases, shorthand for respect by the have-nots for the property rights of the haves. If those on the
bottom rungs do not feel that they are getting a fair shake, the very bedrock of our prosperity crumbles into social and economic apartheid as millions of Americans flee to gated communities, millions more are required to staff the burgeoning private security industry, and yet more millions fill our prisons. This is likely the reason why supply-side economics fails in the real world. Cross national comparisons in developed nations, for example, show no correlation between tax rates and economic growth. Further,
the golden period of growth in the years before 1973 occurred in an environment of higher tax rates than in the lowergrowth 1980s and 1990s. More ominously, several data sets now connect high national income inequality with low growth. Correlation is not causation, and clearly, much more research is called for. But these data should give pause to those who are complacent about increasing income and wealth disparities, and who further believe that reducing the top marginal income-tax rates and eliminating the death tax leads to economic Valhalla.
62
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
63
AT: Econ growth solves poverty

Economic growth causes poverty William Bernstein, 8 economic and investment writer and neurologist (The New York Times, How Big of a Deal Is Income
Inequality? A Guest Post Auguest 27, 2008 http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/how-big-of-a-deal-is-incomeinequality-a-guest-blog/)
The paradox of economic growth is that the same mechanisms that create great wealth secure property rights and rule of law guaranteed by an independent judiciary also give rise to great inequalities in its distribution. Private property provides a powerful incentive to produce wealth for oneself while simultaneously denying that same wealth to others. Wealth does trickle down to the rest of the population, but
often not fast enough to avoid political strife and worse. The reason for this is simple: if individuals cannot keep enough of what they earn then they will not produce. If, on the other hand, the most productive do keep what they earn, significant inequalities inevitably result. Further, in a technologically driven world where an individuals unique talents can be scaled up to an almost infinite degree, inequality increases dramatically. For example, researchers Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez calculated that between 1972 and 2006, the portion of
income earned by the top 10 percent of the population rose by half; for the top 1 percent, meanwhile, it doubled; and it quadrupled for the top 0.1 percent. For the top 0.01 percent, it rose sevenfold. The current disparities are nearly identical to those of early 20th-century American robber-baron capitalism.
63
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
64
***GUNS/VIOLENCE***
64
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
65
Poverty Guns Violence

Poverty causes an increase in gun violence and other crimes
Buckley, columnist, 99 (William Buckley, nationally syndicated columnist, Poverty and Crime Prevention, The Washington Times, 12-22-99) In this, the authors have a problem. Thirty years ago, the commission was blaming poverty for the high crime rate. Poverty persists, but we are living, of course, in a historic boom, and one register of the commission's findings has to acknowledge that the reduction in crime has to have something to do with the flourishing economy. The joblessness of 30 years ago is not a feature of life when only 4 percent are unemployed. The commission remarks the increase in firearms double what they then were, rising to 200 million today), but comes to rest on: inequality. Crime has been exacerbated by a "vast and shameful inequality in income, wealth and opportunity." The report notes that more than one-quarter of U.S. children live in poverty.
Poverty increases guns

Rosenthal, staff writer, 06 (John Rosenthal, cofounder of the organization Stop Handgun Violence, senior staff writer for the Boston Globe, Make federal laws to reduce gun access, 1-7-06, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/07/make_federal_laws_to_reduce_gun_access/) Given the huge number of easily accessible and virtually unregulated guns in the United States, it is surprising there aren't more than 30,000 gun deaths and 100,000 gun injuries each year. Most US cities have experienced an increase in gun violence, and this deadly trend is likely to continue until we enact uniform national gun laws that address easy access to guns by criminals and confront race, poverty, and the lack of economic opportunity in
our poorest neighborhoods. Poverty leads to juvenile gun violence

Schiraldi, director of the JPI, 09 (Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute, a research and public policy organization in D.C., Making Sense of Juvenile Homicide in America, Spring 2009) Likewise, the United States has a staggering child poverty rate as compared to other Western nations and past generations of American youth. In a 1995 study by the National Science Foundation, the United States not only had the highest rate of child poverty among 17 industrialized nations, but our rate was nearly three times that of those other nations. In 1995, there were 14.8 million youth in poverty, about one in four children in America. This is up substantially from 1970, when there were about 8 million youth living in poverty. The gun lobby frequently points to Switzerland and Israel, both of which have high gun ownership and lower homicide rates than the United States, as an argument against gun control. However, America has three times as many children in poverty per capita as Switzerland and twice as many as Israel. If one were to try to design a society to produce a high juvenile murder rate, one could hardly do better than to nearly double the number of children in poverty and create a ready pipeline to cheap, easily concealable handguns.
65
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
66
Poverty Gun Violence

Poverty is the root cause of gun violence
ACLUM, 08 (ACLUM- American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, What is wrong with the Safe Homes Initiative? http://www.aclum.org/pdf/aclum_safe_homes_briefing_v2.pdf, 1-08) Because poverty, discrimination, and violence are often linked," the Future of Children authors state, "one
way to decrease violence is to address economic inequality and social injustice in the United States...some believe this is the only way to reduce gun violence" (page 14). If we want to devise solutions to the problem of youth violence that are both effective and long lasting, we must attempt to grasp this big picture as a starting point Poverty causes violence
Paulson, staff writer, 08 (Amanda Paulson, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, U.S. Violent Crime Falls Slightly, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p03s01-usgn.htm, 6-11-08) Violence also tends to go hand in hand with economic conditions, he says, noting that more impoverished Southern states and cities often see the worst violence. In these latest statistics, the South was the only region to see an overall uptick in violent crimes, up 0.7 percent, though the trend, again, varied by city. Homicides were up significantly in New Orleans, Atlanta, and Jacksonville, Fla., but down in Memphis, Tenn., and Birmingham, Ala. "Poverty has an impact on crime in two ways," says Professor Levin. "First by creating more desperate
individuals who use the illegitimate system because they don't believe the mainstream works for them, and second by reducing and maybe eliminating effective crime-fighting policies and programs." Given that, he says, the worsening economic conditions right now offer some cause for concern.
66
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
67
Poverty Gun Violence

High poverty rates tied to levels of gun crimes
Hurdle, senior columnist, 07 (John Hurdle, senior columnist for the New York Times, Philadelphia Struggles to Quell an Epidemic of Gun Violence, 4-15-07, LexisNexis) In some ways, Mr. Williams is a typical patient at the trauma unit: young, mildly intoxicated and apparently with no idea why he was shot. What makes his case less common, doctors here say, is that he is neither seriously injured nor dead, since
Philadelphia is in the midst of an epidemic of gun violence that has left the police struggling to preserve public safety and government officials renewing efforts to tighten the state's gun control laws. Last year, there
were 406 homicides in Philadelphia, most of them by gunshot, the highest number in nine years, according to the Police Department. From 2004 to 2006, the number of homicides in the city rose 22 percent, more than twice as much as the aggregate increase recorded by 56 cities surveyed by the Police Executive Research Forum, a national law enforcement group. This year, the pace of the killings has worsened; as of Friday the death toll stood at 110, or 16 percent higher than at the same time last year. By comparison, in New York City, with six times the population, there were 102 homicides from Jan. 1 to April 8, a drop of almost 24.4 percent from the same period a year ago. The rise in violence is evident at the University of Pennsylvania hospital, whose trauma unit treated 479 gunshot victims last year, a 15 percent increase over 2005. Some 18 percent of the attacks were fatal, and 16 percent of the victims will suffer permanent disabilities, like paralysis from head or spinal injuries, amputations, or long-term damage to internal organs. Gun violence is becoming so common in some parts of the city that many people are no longer shocked by it , said Dr. Bill Schwab, chief of trauma and surgical critical care at the hospital. ''Are people becoming numb to violence? The answer is yes,'' Dr. Schwab said. ''It's very common for them to be sitting on their porch and to hear gunshots in the night.'' What sets Philadelphia apart from other cities, say the police, politicians and academic experts, is the combination of
high poverty -- with 25 percent of the population living below the poverty line, the city has the highest rate among the 10 biggest cities, according to census data -- a youth culture that increasingly settles minor disputes through
violence and the easy availability of guns.
PovertyGuns
Antle, PhD, 05 (Beverley J. Antle, PhD, RSD (Realistic Sparring Weapon), President, Ontario Association of Social Workers, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do? ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.27953551309754954&bhcp=1)
Young males in Toronto are dying or being harmed at an alarming rate due to violence involving guns.
While the Ontario Association of Social Workers (OASW) believes that increased policing has a role to play in securing communities affected by apparent gang warfare and criminal activity, the criminal justice system does not hold
long-term solutions to this troubling social phenomenon. The roots of youth violence in family poverty are well documented. The answers lie in ensuring that parents have sufficient incomes, adequate housing and access to supports in order to foster a healthy environment in which to raise children. Attention must focus on strengthening social policies. At the top of our "action list" are: 1) increases to income
support programs for families with children; 2) more expansive training and employment opportunities; and 3) changing the "zero tolerance" policy in schools that pushes troubled kids out of the school system on onto the streets.
67
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
68
***ARMS TRADE***
68
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
69
Poverty Arms Trade

Domestic poverty causes a global arms trade as well as domestic violence
Carroll, columnist, 07 (James Carroll, columnist for the Boston Globe, An Unrealized Dream of Justice, 1-15-07, lexisnexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7030495212&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7030495216& cisb=22_T7030495215&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8110&docNo=24) The disgrace of US poverty, now necessarily seen in the context of a globalized economy, is a footnote to the smoldering catastrophe of worldwide disparities between rich and poor. Cities, especially in the southern hemisphere, teem with desperate people, and no system of authority or organization seems remotely able to respond. If the 20th century seemed a time of capitalism's ascendancy, the new century seems an era of its certain self-destruction. Expect the mantra of "Socialism!" chanted last week in Venezuela to grow louder. And socialism, compared with the possible anarchy, is benign. But racial injustice and poverty [is] inextricably linked to violence. That is why nonviolence formed the evolving center of King's vision. It was no mere tactic with him, a way of coping with racist sheriffs who had guns. Nonviolence was a defining affirmation of the value of life, and it was the practical engine of a powerful political movement. King's was one of the main voices to which Johnson was responding when he sought to lead the nation out of war. 1968 is recalled as a year of hated turmoil, but first it was a year of rare illumination: Racial justice and economic justice depended on peace. King was the first American to speak that triple truth to power, and for a moment, power seemed to hear. Today, the war in Iraq is both a symptom and a cause of the chronic disease of US violence. Bush feeds the virus, and it infects every organ of the body politic. King would be appalled at the way guns now shape the
hopelessness of young black men. But King would name the link between gun supply in American cities and the flood of weapons pouring from a global arms industry across the most impoverished regions of the world. Indeed, poverty has become the ground of global violence, and terrorism is its poison flower. What King and Johnson knew as the war on poverty has become an all-but-declared war on the poor.
Washington is its headquarters.
69
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
70
***TERRORISM***
70
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
71
PovertyTerrorism
Poverty relief can help end terrorism Erin Connelly, 12/2/08, research coordinator at the Helfgott Research Institute at the National College of Natural Medicine, Is
Poverty linked to Terrorism?, http://www.globalenvision.org/2008/12/02/poverty-linked-terrorism The rationale behind the idea that terrorism can be a by-product of poverty persists because it seems pretty logical. Poverty can surely lead to a sense of societal alienation, which could make people more likely to join a terrorist group. Assuming that is the case, extending the benefits of economic growth to marginalized communities could lessen the threat of terrorism. But is this perceived alienation actually a result of poverty, or something else entirely? Anecdotally, poverty relief efforts especially education appear to be powerful antidotes to terror. A prime example is American Greg Mortenson's efforts to build dozens of schools in remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are documented in the book Three Cups of Tea. According to Mortenson, "Education in general is a
powerful tool to provide alternatives to the illiterate, impoverished areas that are the recruiting grounds for terror." Terrorist organizations will provide social benefits for recruits if the government fails to Susan E. Rice, senior fellows at the Brookings Institute, spring 2006, The Threat of Global Poverty,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2006/spring_globaleconomics_rice/20060401.pdf However, the primary flaw in the conventional argument that poverty is unrelated
to terrorism is its failure to capture the range of ways in which poverty can exacerbate the threat of transnational terrorismnot at the individual level but at the state and regional level. Poverty bears indirectly on terrorism by sparking conflict and eroding state capacity, both of which create conditions that can facilitate terrorist activity.
Conflict zones not only cost lives, but they can incubate virtually every type of transnational security threat by creating the optimal anarchic environment for external predators. While low per-capita income increases the likelihood of
civil conflict, conflict zones in turn have been exploited by terrorists to lure foot soldiers and train new cadresas in Bosnia, the Philippines and Central Asia. In extreme cases, conflict results in state failure, as happened in
Somalia and Afghanistan. When states collapse, the climate for predatory transnational actors is improved exponentially. Economic privation is an important indicator of state failure. The cias State Failure Task Force found that states in which human suffering is rampant (as measured by high infant mortality) are 2.3 times more likely to fail than others. State failure is also substantially correlated with uneven distribution of income within societies, as well as a lack of openness to trade. While poor economic conditions are not the only major risk factor for state weakness and failure, they are widely understood to be an important contributor, along with partial democratization, corrupt governance, regional instability and ethnic tension. Even absent conflict, poverty at the country level, particularly in states with significant Muslim populations, may enhance the ability of transnational terrorists to operate. Poor countries with limited institutional capacity to control their territory, borders and coastlines can provide safe havens, training grounds and recruiting fields for terrorist networks. By some estimates, 25 percent of the foreign terrorists recruited by Al-Qaeda to Iraq have come from North and sub-Saharan Africa. To support their activities, networks like Al-Qaeda have exploited the terrain, cash crops, natural resources and financial institutions of low-income states like Mali and Yemen. Militants have taken advantage of lax immigration, security and financial controls to plan, finance and execute operations in Kenya, Tanzania and Indonesia. Al-Qaeda is now believed to have extended its reach to approximately sixty countries worldwide. Country-level poverty may also weaken state capacity to provide essential human services and thereby render states more vulnerable to exploitation by terrorist networks. In low-income countries, social and welfare services are often inadequate, creating voids in education and health that may be filled by radical non-governmental organizations or madrassas. In Indonesia, the Sahel and Bangladesh, for example, international Islamic charities are filling the welfare gap. In Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinian territories, radical groups offer social welfare
services that governments fail to provide. Global terrorist networks may also use legitimate and illegitimate charities as fronts to garner popular support.
71
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
72
PovertyTerrorism
Poverty increases the likelihood of terrorist conflicts Carlos Lozada, associate editor at Foreign Policy Magazine, 05/2005, Does Poverty Cause Terrorism?, http://www.nber.org/cgibin/printit?uri=/digest/may05/w10859.html After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, politicians and policy experts drew a quick and intuitive line between terrorism and poverty. Much of the existing academic literature on conflict suggested that poverty increased the likelihood of political coups and civil war, so conflating terrorism with poor economic conditions seemed logical. Indeed, just a few weeks following 9/11, then U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Zoellick spoke out on the need to liberalize international trade -- and thus reduce poverty -- as a means to fight terrorism. Fixing economic conditions are important to explain terrorism Alberto Abadie, professor at the JFK School of Government at Harvard, 10-2004, Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of
Terrorism, http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~aabadie/povterr.pdf After the 9/11 attacks, much of the political and media debate on terrorism has focused on prevention policies. The widespread view that poverty creates terrorism has dominated much of this debate (see, for example, Kahn and Weiner, 2002). This is hardly surprising. After all, the notion that poverty generates terrorism is consistent with the results of most of the existing literature on the economics of conflicts. In particular, the results in Alesina et al (1996) suggest that poor economic conditions increase the probability of political coups. Collier and Hoeer (2004) show that economic variables are powerful predictors of civil war, while political variables have low explanatory power. Miguel, Satyanath, and Sergenti (2004) show that, for a sample of African countries, negative exogenous shocks in economic growth increase the likelihood of civil conflict. Because terrorism is a
manifestation of political conict, these results seem to indicate that poverty and adverse economic conditions may play an important role explaining terrorism.
72
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
73
***DEMOCRACY***
73
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
74
Democracy Helps Poverty

Democracy is key to alleviate poverty Simi Kamal, founder and chair of the think tank Hisaar Foundation, 6-6- 2K, The Democracy-Poverty Nexus:
Summary on Issues of Participation, http://archive.idea.int/df/2000df/papers_presented_1.html Theoretically the poor in a democratic society should have the same opportunities to seek office and to influence decisionmaking as any other group. Democratization is, therefore, as a key precondition for the alleviation of
poverty, as it would provide the poor with the channels to influence and develop policies that would be to their interest. Poverty is an unacceptable human condition. Yet 1.2 billion people of the world are poor (those who earn less than
US $1 /day). Data suggest that 60 per cent of the world's poorest people (more than 500 million) live in ecologically vulnerable areas, or poverty reserves, in both urban and rural areas. Recent trends in economic development have seen the disparity between rich and poor countries widening. By far the major constraint facing developing countries in their struggle against poverty is trying to survive in a global economic system that is severely skewed against them. Access to financial resources is depended upon a countrys participation in the international community of nations. The powerful rich countries dictate the terms through which the weaker countries must participate in the international system. This is an aspect of "participation" that is often not discussed.
The poor must be able to participate in politics to make democracy work Simi Kamal, founder and chair of the think tank Hisaar Foundation, 6-6- 2K, The Democracy-Poverty Nexus:
Summary on Issues of Participation, http://archive.idea.int/df/2000df/papers_presented_1.html
One can see that there is a democracy-poverty nexus. Economic growth without democracy leads to greater degrees of inequalities - within democratic systems, where a greater proportion of people participate through political institutions in negotiations and debates, they can influence the economic system. The poor have at least the chance to try and bring about economic changes that can lead to the reduction of poverty and inequalities. The missing link between democracy and poverty then, must surely be the political participation of the poor.
However, it must be noted that this participation by the poor is often mitigated by "the market" and "lobbying" by powerful groups in the developed world, and by unelected authoritarian governments and elitist politics in the developing countries. Many democracies continue to carry baggage monarchies and racial values in the "north", paternalist and feudal values in the "south". The world, therefore, has to work towards increasing the political participation of the poor: this means increasing the participation and clout of the poor countries in the international system, particularly the UN, and the participation and clout of the poor within their own countries. The role democracy can play in poverty alleviation is by making the
space for redistributive justice, such that the poor have a fair chance to pull themselves out of disadvantage. This space can be created by strengthening the government, political parties and groups (of the poor, or inclusive of the poor), processes of political participation and negotiation, tempering the market to support the poor, and finding a balance between private enterprise and government control.
74
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
75
Democracy helps poverty

Participation in politics is key for the impoverished Simi Kamal, founder and chair of the think tank Hisaar Foundation, 6-6- 2K, The Democracy-Poverty Nexus:
Summary on Issues of Participation, http://archive.idea.int/df/2000df/papers_presented_1.html A certain antagonism between democracy and the market cannot be denied. Democracies
are at least as efficient as authoritarian regimes to foster economic growth, but they are better equipped for facing economic and social crises. Democratization has largely succeeded until now, but failure by governments to meet the basic needs of the people is posing a threat to the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Governments have surrendered to economic powers, and democratic institutions have weakened. There is, therefore, a need to rescue the institutional essence
of democratic politics, especially since social rights have taken precedence over political rights.
The recovery of democratic politics should start by an increasing popular control of political institutions. In order to alleviate the condition of the poor and the socially excluded, a main asset of democracy is that the system gives voice to the voiceless, so that the excluded may legitimately denounce the
system under which exclusion takes place. This would improve the possibility for maintenance of the social contract, by allowing for successive peaceful changes. Democracy and rule of law should be considered of high political value by themselves ; the point being that of finding out the potential of a democratic regime for the alleviation of poverty while preserving freedoms and rights. Free competition may harm the society, but participative politics should compensate the flaws of the
market, such that social justice becomes an undeniable value. The poor needs a political voice to participate in democracy Simi Kamal, founder and chair of the think tank Hisaar Foundation, 6-6- 2K, The Democracy-Poverty Nexus:
Summary on Issues of Participation, http://archive.idea.int/df/2000df/papers_presented_1.html Very importantly, poverty can be addressed by redefining the economic structures; while social programmes may be needed "poverty alleviation" programmes are not the answer. A paradigm shift is needed in economic
thinking to include redistributive justice, development and support of local enterprise, revenue generation and opportunities for economic advancement of individuals and businesses . A clear perspective
on foreign aid and impact of globalization is also needed in developing countries.
Within the ambit of widespread economic and political participation, work will be needed to rationalize education and other development sectors within urban and rural contexts, through sound
policies and well-managed implementation, such that they all address the roots of poverty and help the poor help themselves. A political voice of the poor through political participation would provide the vital link
between poverty and democracy.
75
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
76
Democracy is awesome
Democracy needs full equal engagement of the population Kevin Lanning, professor at Florida Atlantic University, 8-5-2008, Democracy, Voting, and Disenfranchisement in the United
States: A Social Psychological Perspective, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121370903/HTMLSTART Democracy is more than a system of government. Democratically elected governments can act in undemocratic ways, as in the 1933 vote of the German Reichstag for the Enabling Act, the effect of which was to essentially surrender all governmental power and responsibility to Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Governments with seemingly democratic constitutions may in fact be tyrannical, as in the case of present-day North Korea that despite a constitution that provides safeguards for numerous freedoms and stipulates regular elections is among the least democratic governments on Earth (Post, 2006). What we mean by democracy is captured neither by simple principles of majority rule,
nor by a disembodied set of laws or form of government. Instead, for the present purposes, three characteristics of democracy may be identified, each of which is held to be necessary, and each of which describes a distinct level of analysis. First, at the level of government, democracy is a system in which the laws are essentially made by and govern the same individuals. Notwithstanding the fact that laws may be made indirectly, by elected representatives, it
remains that democratic government implies an agentic citizenry, or, in terms first articulated by Kant and brought into psychology by Piaget, autonomous rather than heteronymous control (Post, 2006). Second, at the level of society, democracy is a system characterized by equality. This is related to the conception of democracy as autonomy or self-governance, for if actors were truly autonomous, each would govern the fate of exactly one individual. Consequently, self-determination implies "equality of democratic agency" (Post, 2006, p. 28). In an ideal democracy, the basic political relationship between individuals is not the asymmetry of subjects
and leaders, but the symmetrical respect between persons with ostensibly equal voices in the political process. Piaget maintained that "the essence of democracy [is to] replace the unilateral respect of authority by the mutual respect of autonomous wills" (Piaget, 1965, p. 363). Third, at the level of the individual, democracy implies both self-efficacy and engagement. With respect to selfefficacy, it is not enough that individuals are in fact self-governing. We must believe that we are self-governing as well (Gonzalez & Tyler, this issue; Post, 2006). With respect to engagement, citizenship, like all forms of group membership, may be understood as a feature of the self-concept. To the extent that this feature is prominent within the self-concept, the actor may be said to identify with the state. The role of identity in democracy is
important in understanding individual differences in political participation, which derive not only from differences in resources and abilities (Dahl, 2006), but also from differences in what Allport described as "egoinvolvement." As an aspect of the self-concept, democracy may be seen as both abstract and concrete, abstract in that its specific meaning and significance will vary from one individual to another, concrete in that its centrality and prominence in the self-concept may be profound.
76
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
77
***VOTING***
77
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
78
Poverty Prevents Voting

Those in poverty are less likely to vote several reasons Kevin Lanning, professor at Florida Atlantic University, 8-5-2008, Democracy, Voting, and Disenfranchisement in the United
States: A Social Psychological Perspective, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121370903/HTMLSTART
In examining the relationship between status and political participation, a number of explanations may be considered. The first of these sees differential participation as grounded in the history of the voting franchise. That is, groups such as young adults, African Americans, and those who rent rather own their homes are less likely to vote than their respective complements, and each of these less-participating constituencies was at one time denied the voting franchise. It is not merely the empty force of precedent that is
salient here, but the fact that the massive institutions that are American political parties evolve at a rate that one used to be able to describe as "glacial." On this view, the American Republican and Democratic parties are institutions that perpetuate the status quo, primarily serving the voting public of an earlier age (Keyssar, 2000). The greater turnout among women than men provides counterevidence, but other measures of political participation provide a somewhat different pictureat the highest levels of political power women are rare, and remain, at this writing, still absent from the list of those who have attained this country's highest office.
A related explanation sees differential electoral participation in its cultural as well as historic context, as but one of many manifestations of inequality in America. On this argument, political participation requires resources such as wealth, interest, knowledge, and time. Because these resources are unequally
distributed, so too will be various forms of political participation (Dahl, 2006). There is a tension between the democratic ideal of equality and the disparities in wealth and resources found under market capitalism, particularly as it is instantiated in America (Ringen, 2006). A third class of explanation for the relationship between status and political participation considers that the costs of political participation, particularly voting, may be effectively different for different groups. This provides a framework for interpreting attempts at voter suppression, which may be understood as attempts to impose a prohibitive cost of voting on some groups. Voter suppression is not merely of historical interest: In a 2006 campaign, for example, some 14,000 registered voters with Latino surnames were sent letters from the office of a congressional candidate warning them that they could be imprisoned or deported for voting (Navarette, 2006). It is a sign of progress toward equal voting rights that such blatant attempts at voter suppression are now met with bipartisan condemnation. But other mechanisms that impose a differential cost of voting continue. For example, restrictions in voting hours may impose a particularly large
cost on some groups of individuals, such as working single parents and those who rely on public transportation, who may find it particularly difficult to get to the polls in a narrow window of time (but see Gronke & Toffey, this issue). In addition to restricted voting hours, other mechanisms that may lead to a differential probability of voting include bureaucratic obstacles such as registration barriers that disenfranchise the itinerant, and public officials who may only go through the motions of encouraging would-be voters. In addition to disenfranchising some fraction of the voting populace, biases in election administration may cast doubt on the integrity of the entire electoral process (deHaven Smith, 2005).
The fourth category of explanation for differential voting lies in the relative benefits of voting for one candidate over another. Where candidates do not functionally differ, the value of voting will be reduced. This category of explanation is fairly broad. It encompasses the economic argument that the wealthy are more likely than the poor to
vote because the difference between candidates is greatest for those potential voters who have the most to lose. This category of explanation also encompasses a social learning account, in which voting and political
participation are the product of efficacy beliefs that are associated with socioeconomic status. In other words, the disempowered are least likely to vote because they have learned that voting does not matter (Cohen, Vigoda, & Samorly, 2001). Finally, where candidates are drawn from a single social class, ethnicity, and/or gender, their
seeming homogeneity may lead potential voters who are members of out-groups to perceive candidates as essentially interchangeable, and to the conclusion that the act of voting would be a waste of time.
78
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
79

Rich are more involved in civic in engagement Tony A. Blakely, a recipient of a New Zealand Health Research Council Training Fellowship and MBChB, MPH, et al, January 2001, Socioeconomic Inequality in Voting Participation and Self-Rated Health, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?
artid=1446487&blobtype=pdf
An independent line of evidence in political science suggests that socioeconomic inequalities in political participation lead to state policies that harm the poor. Thus, Hill and Leighley reported that lower
representation of poorer voters at the state level in 1986 (both of itself and relative to high-income voters) was associated with less generous welfare spending by states. 11 Subsequently, Hill et al. replicated this finding for 1978 to 1990, 12 although the association weakened over the 1980s, possibly owing to constrained state budgets during the period of New Federalism. Aside from the act of voting, monetary donations to political campaigns disproportionately
come from people of higher socioeconomic status,13 and this in turn may cause policy to be skewed to the interests of these groups.14 Given the foregoing, then, it is plausible that unequal political participation at the state level is also associated with worse average health status. A related explanation is that political participation is both a measure of civic engagement generally and a proxy measure of the broader concept of social capital.15 Social capital as indexed by density of membership in associations, levels of interpersonal trust, and strength
of norms of mutual aid and reciprocity15,16 has been associated with mortality and self-rated health in the United States.10,17
79
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
80

The impoverished are less likely to vote Justice Works, grassroots criminal justice reform organization, 9-26-2007, Voting Rights Position Paper,
http://www.justiceworks.info/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=22 Voting is a fundamental right as well as a civic duty. Restoring the right to vote will strengthen our democracy by increasing voter participation. It will help people who have completed their incarceration reintegrate into society and allow them to demonstrate their caring about their communities. Voting is an essential part of reassuming the duties of full citizenship.Felon disenfranchisement laws exist in America today primarily because of events in our past history, not because of any rational policy decisions. And, if prison sentences cannot seem to deter potential criminal activity, then the threat of losing the right to vote wont do it either. But, having the right to vote does have value as a way to support a previously incarcerated persons positive decisions to live honorably and legally. Since the founding of this country, most states have denied the vote to those convicted of a felony. Due to the current policies of mass incarceration, these laws have severely impacted the political voice of many communities including the African American community. Disenfranchisement does not reduce crime. Denying the vote to citizens is a slap at Americans democratic ideals. This is especially offensive when the reason for denying a citizen the right to vote is directly and
exclusively tied to their financial status. Since Washington State charges an outrageously high interest rate of 12% on legal financial obligations, poor families who can barely feed themselves are pushed even farther into the margins of society. So, stripping a person of their right to vote due to poverty is morally outrageous. It is the modern day poll tax.
80
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
81
***TELEVISION***
81
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
82 Commercial television hurts democracy Anthony E. Varona, professor of law at Pace University School of Law, 10-2004, Changing Channels and
Television hurts Democracy
Bridging Divides: The Failure and Redemption of American Broadcast Television Regulation, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7019007513&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7019004945& cisb=22_T7019004944&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=240997&docNo=1 Considering its track record, there is little dispute that Congress' reliance on the public trustee doctrine to promote a "marketplace of ideas" was misplaced. The "marketplace of ideas" metaphor, upon which the public trustee doctrine is rooted, commands that "public discussion is a political duty" and recognizes "that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." n320 In discussing the importance of public deliberation [*65] in democratic self-government,
Professor Alexander Meiklejohn observes that because citizens of a democracy are their own sovereigns, they must have access to "the unhindered flow of accurate information" and the fora in which to debate, in order to make the wisest decisions. n321 Commercial television, however, neither provides citizens with an "unhindered flow of accurate information," nor a forum in which to deliberate. The first reason why television is a poor conduit for engendering true democratic deliberation is that it is too passive. Inertia, not democratic participation, is what modern commercial television seems to best promote. Television, by design, is not interactive. The "vision" that it transmits is mediated and narrow. n322 Television can be isolating to viewers, n323 and it can distort the "reality" it claims to transmit. Few observers of American media and politics are unaware of the dissonance between televised and in-person performances. A recent and blatant example of the distorting nature of television is the so-called "scream speech" delivered by thenDemocratic presidential candidate Howard Dean after his loss in the Iowa caucuses on January 19, 2004. The footage, aired repeatedly on broadcast and cable news programs, showed what appeared to be a shrieking Dean, prompting commentators to call his performance a "meltdown" and stark evidence of his lack of presidential temperament. n324 What television did not capture, however, was that inside of the ballroom, the crowd noise was so high that Dean's voice could barely be heard. n325 Dean's "meltdown" speech was aired repeatedly on every major television news program, but only one television
reporter - Diane Sawyer, the co-host of ABC's Good Morning America - explained that although Governor Dean's animated, high-volume performance appeared [*66] appropriate to those in the room with him, the televised version of the speech made him sound frenzied (he was using a handheld "unidirectional" microphone designed to mask the noise of the crowd in the room). n326 Videotapes from news crews using their own omnidirectional camera-mounted microphones demonstrated that Dean's voice could barely be heard over the crowd's noise. n327 The televised version of reality -
the "scream" footage - became the reality of the Dean campaign, and the campaign failed to regain its footing. n328
82
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
83
Television is racist
Television often lacks the presence of people of color in their programming Leonard M. Baynes, Professor of Law at St. Johns University, Summer 2003, WHITE OUT: The Absence and
Stereotyping of People of Color by the Broadcast Networks in Prime Time Entertainment Programming, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7019007513&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey =29_T7019004945&cisb=22_T7019236385&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=140710&docNo=36 The absence and the stereotyping of people of color by the mass media is a source of concern for all. n47 Since we live in a relatively segregated country, many whites often have more electronic, rather than personal, encounters with people of color. n48 Therefore, their attitudes and actions are likely to be shaped by what they see on television. n49 Some African Americans and Latinos(as) may also have similarly limited encounters of whites. Some live in hyper segregated communities with few contacts with members of other racial groups. n50 Broadcast television and its
images and representations are very important because television can be the common meeting ground for all Americans. However, since Nielsen surveys show that African Americans and Latinos(as) are watching different
programming than white Americans, n51 broadcast television fails to play this important role as the societal meeting ground. In addition, broadcast television fails to serve the minority audiences, which comprise almost thirty percent of the U.S. population, by neglecting to provide these groups with programming they desire. This failure is bad business n52 and violates the broadcasters' public interest obligations under the Communications Act n53 and should be grounds for FCC disciplinary action against the broadcasters. n54The purpose of this Article is not to advocate censorship or to point fingers at any single television program or network. The purpose of this Article is to start the process of engaging in a useful and productive dialogue on the media's responsibility to portray full-bodied and realistic depictions of all people of color on television in entertainment programming. The depictions of people of color by the media
should avoid the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.
83
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
84
Television bad
High television viewing causes poverty Luigino Bruni and Luca Stanca, Department of Economics at University of Milan Bicocca, 06-2005, Income Aspirations,
Television and Happiness: Evidence from http://dipeco.economia.unimib.it/pdf/pubblicazioni/wp89_05.pdf In this paper we argue that television the World Values Survey,
viewing reduces the effect of income on life satisfaction by producing higher material aspirations, enhancing both adaptation and positional effects. More specifically, we formulate the hypothesis that heavy TV users derive less satisfaction from a given level of income , relative to occasional TV users, since television viewing has a significant positive impact on their material aspirations .
In our view, television has a powerful effect on the satisfaction an individual derives from his income and consumption levels by speeding up both the hedonic and positional treadmills. We investigate this hypothesis empirically using individual data from the World Values Survey. The results indicate that the effect of income on subjective well being is significantly lower for heavy-TV viewers. This finding is robust to a number of specification checks, while different alternative interpretations are examined and rejected. Overall, the results can be interpreted as an
indication that the role of TV in raising aspirations provides an additional explanation for the incomehappiness paradox: the pervasive and increasing role of television viewing in peoples life contributes to raising
individual material aspirations, thus lowering the effect of higher income on happiness.
84
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
85
Poor watch TV
Poor children more likely to watch television than wealthy USDA, no date given, Health-Relate Behaviors, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan04014-3/efan04014-3e.pdf On average, 5-16-year-olds in the lowest-income group spent significantly more time watching television than comparably aged children in either of the other income groups. Children in the lowest-income group watched an average of 2.3 hours of television per day, compared with 2.0 hours for children in the other two
income groups (figure 40 and table D-86). As shown in figure 40, this difference was concentrated among females. The age-specific analyses indicate that the difference for females were concentrated among females under the age of 14. Among 5- 10-year-old females, the lowest-income group watched an average of 2.3 hours of television per day, compared with 1.8 hours and 1.6 hours for the low- and higher-income groups, respectively (table D-86). Among 11-13-year-old females, the lowest-income group watched 2.6 hours of television per day, compared with 2.0 hours for the other two income groups. In essence, television-viewing habits of the younger females in the lowestincome group mirror those of their male counterparts, while younger females in the other income groups watch less television than their male counterparts.
85
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
86
***TOBACCO***
86
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
87
Poor watch TV
Poor minorities most likely to watch TV and be inactive Kristen Day, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin, 3-31-2006, Active Living and Social Justice: Planning for Physical Activity in Lowincome, Black, and Latino Communities, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/903606_731197592_787384889.pdf Physical inactivity is also a cause of obesity among low-income, Black, and Latino individuals. Rates of physical activity are tied to socioeconomic status among adults and youth (Cauley, Donfield, Laporte, & Warhaftig, 1991; Frank et al., 2003; Garcia et al., 1995; Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002; King et al., 1999; Kitamura, Mokhtarian, & Laidet, 1997; Sallis, Hovell, Hofstetter, & Barrington, 1992; Sallis, Simons-Morton, et al., 1992; Sallis, Zakarian, Hovell, & Hofstetter, 1996; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996).4 People with lower incomes and less education are less likely than others to get sufficient physical activity (Huston, Evenson, Bors, & Gizlice, 2003). In fact, nearly half of those with less than a high school education report no regular leisure-time physical activity. By comparison, less than 20% of college graduates are inactive (see also Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002). In the U.S., African Americans and Latinos are more inactive than are non-Latino White individuals (CDC, 1994; Crawford et al., 2001; Gannon, DePietro, & Poehlman, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996; Weinsier et al., 2000). Among high school students, for example, participation in vigorous physical activity is lower among Black and Hispanic students than among. White students. African American youth and adults also spend more time watching TV than do White youth (CDC, 2000; Crespo, Smit, Andersen, CarterPokras, & Ainsworth, 2000). According to findings from the NHANES III (19881994), more than half of Black adults engage in no leisure-time physical activity (Blocker & Freudenberg, 2001). Only 10% of Black adults engage in sustained activity for at least 30 minutes a day. Low- and middle-income Black women are far more likely than highincome Black women to be inactive (Blocker & Freudenberg, 2001). Physical inactivity is a problem among Latinos as well, though research on this population is more limited (Juarbe, 1998). More than 60% of Latino men and women are reported to have sedentary lifestyles (American Heart Association, 1999).
87
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
88
Poverty Tobacco
Persons in poverty use tobacco more and are less likely to quit. Flint and Nevotny 1997
(AJ Flint and TE Novotny, University of California School of Public Health Professors, Tobacco Control, Poverty status and cigarette smoking prevalence and cessation in the United States, 1983-1993: the independent risk of being poor.) OBJECTIVE: To analyse the independent relations between poverty status and cigarette smoking prevalence and cessation in the United States, 1983-1993. DESIGN: An analysis of eight cross-sectional national surveys. SETTING: The United States, 1983-1993. PARTICIPANTS: 236,311 civilian, non-institutionalised adult residents of the United States, aged 18 years and older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probability of current cigarette smoking and proportion of former smokers among ever-smokers (quit ratio) in surveyed subjects below the poverty threshold, compared with those at or above the poverty threshold. RESULTS: The odds ratio for current smoking among persons below the poverty threshold ranged from a low of 1.10 in 1985 to a high of 1.45 in 1990, and remained between 1.26 and 1.30 during 1991-1993. The odds ratio for smoking cessation (quit ratio) among persons below the poverty threshold ranged from 0.81 in 1985 to 0.64 in 1991, and remained between 0.73 and 0.66 during 1991-1993. These measures of
the relations between poverty status and smoking were derived using multiple logistic regression models, which adjusted for the effects of sex, age, education, race, employment status, marital status, and geographic region. CONCLUSIONS: Persons below the poverty threshold continue to be more likely than those at or above the threshold both to be current smokers and not to have quit. Poverty may be an indicator of underparticipation in the changing social norms regarding smoking behaviour in recent years. Individuals
below the poverty threshold may need focused efforts to help achieve the Healthy People 2000 objectives for reducing adult smoking prevalence. Further understanding of the relation between poverty and smoking is essential to develop effective programmes for this vulnerable population subgroup.
88
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
89
Poverty Tobacco
Poverty increases the risk of smoking initiation in youth. Galea, Nandi, and Vlahov 04
(SandroGalea, ArijitNandi, and David Vlahov, Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies, New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 3-8-2004, Oxford Journals) InitiationCigarettes and alcohol. Most of the work assessing the role of social factors in the initiation of cigarette use has studied family characteristics during ones childhood or adolescence as determinants of starting (table 1). A large prospective study in California and Oregon followed a racially and socioeconomically heterogeneous group of 3,056 adolescents between 1985 and 1995 (9). Low school achievement (operationalized as poor grades), a higher level of parental education, and being young in ones age cohort were associated with a higher likelihood of starting smoking. In contrast, being part of a nuclear family and a member of a minority group were associated with a lower likelihood of starting cigarette smoking. In a 26-year follow-up of African Americans in inner-city Chicago, Illinois, those with poorer relationships with their family were more likely to start smoking (10). Specifically, those who left home before age 18 years and had less strict parental rules about drug use were more likely to start smoking. In a
cross-sectional study of 5,427 adolescents conducted in Brisbane, Australia, low school achievement, low household income, low levels of maternal education, and parental smoking were all associated with adolescent cigarette smoking (11). In contrast, a study of a sample of young Latina women in Los Angeles, California, found that parental
smoking was not associated with smoking initiation (12). Cultural factors, particularly nontraditional family values and linguistic acculturation, were primarily associated with smoking initiation in this study; it is likely that these factors are particularly important in this group of mostly foreign-born women, explaining the lack of association between familial factors and smoking initiation observed in this study.Other studies that have assessed initiation of multiple substances confirm the observation that adverse childhood family conditions are associated with a greater likelihood of initiation of cigarette use (13, 14). Conversely, positive parental-adolescent relationships have been associated with a lower risk of cigarette use (15), although this finding is not universal across studies (16). Smoking behavior of social network members and protobacco media influences also have been shown to be important determinants of age at smoking initiation (17). Studies investigating the association between race/ethnicity and smoking initiation have been inconsistent, with some reporting that African-American adolescents are less likely than White adolescents to initiate smoking (9) and others finding that African-American adolescents are more likely than White adolescents to initiate smoking (18). Differences in social exposures, including network relations and norms, have been shown to explain racial/ethnic differences in smoking initiation (18).In terms of alcohol, some (19, 20) but not other (21) studies have linked parental alcohol and substance use to adolescent initiation of alcohol use. Several studies (14, 22) have identified disruption of family structure and social networks that use alcohol as a risk factor for initiation of alcohol use. Although there are few comparisons of the role of familial and social network determinants in the initiation of licit drug use, a cross-sectional study of 2,017 high school students found that social network characteristics were more important than familial characteristics in explaining cigarette and alcohol use (16).Thus, characteristics of ones family during childhood and adolescence (including poor relationships between parents and children, parental educational attainment, and possibly parental substance use) appear to be the primary social factors associated with smoking and alcohol initiation. However, characteristics of families may be less important in specific groups where other social circumstances, including social network use of substances or recent migration, may be more important.
89
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
90
Tobacco Bad - Environment

Cultivating tobacco is terrible for the environment. McLaren 07
(Warren McLaren, Staff Writer, 2-27-07, TreeHugger.com, Smoking: Environmental and Social Impacts)
In the past we have talked about the litter problem resulting from cigarette smoking. We tendered some
solutions: biodegradable filters and butt boxes, as well as a suggestion for responsible disposable messages on cigarette packaging. But really these are what are known as end-of-pipe solutions. They deal with the result of the problem, not its cause: societys addictive consumption of tobacco. We do like positive stories at TH, but this time around we offer a few sobering snippets of info on the issue and hope they might lead to greater insight ... and action. (Sources can be found by clicking the numbered references.) Global cigarette production in 2004 was 5.5 trillion units, or 868 cigarettes per every man, woman and child on the planet .1 There are around 1.2 billion smokers in the world (about one-third of the global population aged 15 and over). 2. Nearly forty per cent (39.4%) of Europeans smoke, (up from 1995, when a figure of 33.9% recorded.) 2a. At least 4.5 trillion [non-biodegradable] filter-tipped cigarettes are deposited annually somewhere in the world. 3 China, United States, Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia are the five countries that produce the most raw tobacco leaves and manufactured cigarettes. 4 Malawi, Korea, Macedonia, Moldova, and Lebanon devote more than 1% of their agricultural land to tobacco leaf production. 4 In Africa, around 5% of all deforestation is caused by tobacco. In Malawi, where the ancient dry forests of the miombo highlands are particularly under threat, tobacco accounts for 20% of deforestation. 5 Each year nearly 600 million trees are destroyed to provide fuel to dry tobacco. Put in another way one tree is destroyed for every 300 cigarettes. 6 Globally, tobacco curing requires 11.4 million tons of solid wood annually. 7 green-smoke.jpgTobacco is a sensitive plant prone to many diseases. It therefore requires huge chemical
inputs: up to 16 applications of pesticide are recommended during one three-month growing period. Aldrin and Dieldrin, and DDT are among the chemicals used. Methyl bromide, widely used as a fumigant in developing countries, contributes significantly to ozone depletion.5 As well as being hazardous to users, chemicals may run off into water courses, contaminating local water supplies. 2 There are also concerns about high levels of pesticide use leading to the development of resistance in mosquitoes and flies, making the control of diseases such as malaria more difficult. 5 Tobacco is particularly potassium-hungry, absorbing up to six times as much as other crops, leaving soil in poor condition for essential food and cash crops. 5 Modern cigarette manufacturing machines use more than six kilometres of paper per hour. 8 In 1995 worldwide tobacco manufacturing produced 2.26 billion kilograms of solid waste and 209 million kilograms of chemical waste. 7 Releases to the environment of Toxics Release Inventory chemicals by the
tobacco manufacturing industry in the United States recorded for 1996 included (but werent limited to): Ammonia 946,155 kg Hydrochloric acid 407,371 kg Methyl ethyl ketone 340,821 kg Nicotine and nicotine salts 900,377 kg Sulphuric acid 67,228 kg Toluene 349,622 kg 3 I used to get sicker than a dog, with fever, burning skin, and nausea, if I wasnt real careful with the chemicals I sprayed on tobacco, says Askins [an Appalachian tobacco farmer.] The chemicals may have affected the environment, as well. You dont hear bullfrogs or toads anymore, because weve poisoned the streams and creeks with our chemicals, he speculates. He also describes the symptoms of nicotine poisoning from handling the ripe tobacco plant: sudden nausea, dizziness, and headaches. 9 Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide (about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020. Half the people that smoke today -that is about 650 million people- will eventually be killed by tobacco. 10 Cigarette smoke contains polonium 210, a radioactive element. One study shows that a person who smokes 20 cigarettes a day receives a dose of radiation each year equivalent to about 200 chest x-rays. 5 In 1999, tobacco-related medical expenditures and productivity losses cost the United States more than $150 billionalmost 1.5 times the revenue of the five largest multinational tobacco companies that year. 11 A Finnish study of consumer reaction to a possible eco-cigarette, found that dispensing with the external plastic wrapping, aluminium foil liner, and use of unbleached or oxygen bleached paper for the box and/or cigarette instead of the usual chlorine bleaching would likely be acceptable to smokers. 12 Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco. This means that these families have less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. 10 ... and saving the best (and rare good news) for last: Mullins says that whereas he netted about $2,500 from his best acre of tobacco this past season, he cleared roughly $20,000 from a nearby acre of organic grape tomatoes. Comment by an Appalachian tobacco farmer transitioning his land to organic vegetable production. 9 NB: And yeh, we know the cigarette
90
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
91
in the top photo most likely does not use one of those 4.5 trillion filters discarded annually.
91
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
92
Tobacco Bad - Economy

Smoking drains the economysmoking costs 6x more than all of the Medicaid payments. McBroom 98
(Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs at University of California Berkeley, 9-16-98, $72.7 Billion: Smoking's Annual Health Care Cost)
The total cost of caring for people with health problems caused by cigarette smoking -- counting all sources of medical payments -- is about $72.7 billion per year, according to health economists at the University of California.The figure is almost six times higher than the cost per year of smoking-related Medicaid payments alone, reported last spring by the same Berkeley and UCSF economists. The new total estimate
"translates the adverse health effects (of smoking) into dollar terms, the universal language of decision makers," said the analysis published today in Public Health Reports. All payments made in 1993 by Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration medical programs, military medical programs, private health insurance companies and out-of-pocket payments were analyzed for that fraction of illness caused by cigarette smoking. By comparison, the March report counted only the cost of smoking-related Medicaid payments -- $12.9 billion that year. "I am not surprised by these costs," said Leonard Miller, an economist and professor in the School of Social Welfare at Berkeley, who is first author on the report.
"You expect a figure of this magnitude for the impact of smoking on health care, when you consider that one in five deaths per year is due to cigarette use," said Miller. Smoking accounted for 11.8 percent of all medical expenditures in the U.S. in 1993, according to the analysis. The report was co-authored by Dorothy
Rice, professor emeritus of health economics at the UCSF Institute for Health and Aging and former director of the National Center for Health Statistics. Other authors are Xiulan Zhang, a Berkeley graduate student, and Wendy Max, associate professor of health economics at UCSF. " We can now see the tremendous burden of smoking on society," said Rice. "These are very high costs." She pointed out that the 1993 bill for California alone amounted to $8.7 billion, the highest total in the nation, followed by New York, with $6.6 billion in smoking-related disease costs. Wyoming, at $80 million in 1993, had the lowest expenditure for illness caused by cigarette smoking. Rice also said that if a proposed financial settlement between Congress and tobacco companies had been reached last spring, it would not have come close to compensating private and public insurance payers for the cost of smoking-related illnesses. That settlement, now off the boards, would have cost tobacco companies $368.5 billion, paid out over 25 years, in exchange for a cap on future lawsuit liability against the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry pulled out of the negotiations when the proposed settlement rose above $500 billion over 25 years. But according to the Miller-Rice report, the actual cost of medical care for smoking-related disease in the next 25 years will be an astronomical $1.8 trillion. "The amount being considered was clearly well below the actual amount that will be spent for the health care of smokers whose health has been damaged by cigarettes," said Rice. Estimates in the report of "smoking-attributable expenditures" (SAEs) are derived from 11 equations that link smoking history with health in two ways: (1) the likelihood of a prior treatment for a tobacco-related disease (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and arteriosclerosis); and (2) self-reported poor health. Other calculations then analyzed the impact of self-reported poor health on direct medical expenditures. Miller accounted for the impact of 11 such factors: age, gender, region of the country, education, income, body mass, seat belt use, smoking history, self-reported health status, previous treatment for tobacco-related diseases and type of medical expenditure. "These are the best federal and collective state data . It's the best we can do at this point to estimate the impact of smoking on health costs in all 50 states," said Miller.
92
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
93
***KILLS CHILDREN***
93
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
94
Poverty Kills Children

Poverty is tough for newborns. Gortmaker, Professr of Health Sociology at Harvard, 79
(Steven L. Gortmaker, Professor of Health Sociology at Harvard, 3-1979, American Sociological Association, Poverty and Infant Mortality in the United States) A significant orientation of the presentresearch is a focus upon extreme income poverty as a determinant of infant death, as opposed to the specification of a linear relationship between family income and differentials in infant mortality. As Me- chanic (1968:246) suggests: -the relationship may hold only when deprived social and cultural groups are in- voved, so that we might expect a curve char- acterizingthe relationship to reach a plateau at a level of income which might be thought of as relatively low. The notion of such a critical income level was introduced by Anderson (1958), and research by Willie and Rothney (1962), as well as more recent national data (NCHS, 1972) support this conceptualization. The definition of poverty used in the present analysis is based upon guidelines published by the Community Services Administration which take into account total family income, family size, and consumer prices as charted by the Consumer Price Index (Community Services Ad- ministration, 1975). (See Appendix.) Table 1 presents estimates of both neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates by poverty status of a family in 1964-65. The human infant
is remarkably dependent upon others for survival at birth, and newborn humans are thus exceedingly susceptible to negative influences upon their health. The fact of poverty can present a variety of hazards to the newborn and can impose constraints upon many areas of parental activity in defense of their offspring. These hazards and constraints can emerge in the form of inferior housing, poor sanitary facilities at home, lack of adequate food and clothing, inadequate hospital or postnatal medical care, lack of transportation facilities-meaning difficulty in obtaining needed services. Finally, those in poverty are often vulnerable to the experience of stressful situations. All of these factors can have damaging effects upon the health of the newborn. Poor housing, for example, has been implicated in high rates of death due
to infectious diseases during the two to eleven months after birth in England (De- partment of Health and Social Security, 1970) and preventable infections are also prevalent in the neonatal period (Vaughan and McKay, 1975: 322). One useful distinction concerning effects of poverty upon infant mortality separates the effects of poverty described above-those which impinge directly upon the newborn-from the consequences of poverty which may hinder development of the fetus, and hence which are mediated quite literally by mother during the prenatal period. The most studied indicator of the development the fetus is birth weight: although only 7% of all births in the present study are low birth weight (less than 2,500 gm), 61% all infant deaths occur to this 7%. Birth weight is thus usually described as intervening variable of which best predicts infant mortality. Furthermore, a substantial number characteristics of the mother and her behaviors has been linked to an increased risk of low birth weight. Both "natural experiments" with famines during World War II (Smith, 1947; Antonov, 1947) and more recent experiment in GuatamalaHabicht et al., 1974) highlight the impact inadequate nutrition of mothers upon subsequent birth weight of the infant. Low maternal weight (O'Sullivan et al., 1965; Rush et al., 1972), maternal smoking (Fielding and Yankauer, 1978a), consumption of alcohol (Fielding and Yankauer, 1978b), and lack of prenatal care (Institute of Medicine, 1973; Gortmaker, 1979) are other factors related to the increased risk of low birth weight. The extent to which poverty is related to infant death both in- dependently of birth weight, and indirectly via birth weight, thus provides two different explanations for the effects of poverty upon infant mortality. Strategies to reduce the impact of poverty upon birth weight should be aimed at helping the mother during the prenatal period; strategies directed toward infant deaths which are related to poverty indepen- dently of birth weight, in contrast, should be aimed at helping the mother and infant during and after birth.
94
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
95

Infant mortality is substantially higher for those children born under the poverty level. CDC 95
(Center for Disease Control, 12-15-95, Poverty http://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00039818.htm) and Infant Mortality -United States, 1988
Although previous reports have documented that rates of low birthweight and intrauterine growth retardation are higher among infants of women living in poverty (1), the infant mortality risk among infants born to women with low incomes has not been characterized recently. To analyze the relation between parental low income and infant mortality, CDC analyzed data from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) (the most recent data available). This report presents the findings of the analysis and indicates that for women with household incomes below the poverty level * in 1988, the infant mortality rate was 60% higher and the postneonatal mortality rate was twice as high as those for women living above poverty level. NMIHS was a national population-based survey that collected data about pregnancy outcomes from vital records and questionnaires administered by mail and telephone. The survey had two stratified systematic samples: 13,417 women who had had a live-born infant in 1988 and 8166 women whose infant had died within 1 year after birth (2). Of the mothers in the live-born infant sample and the infant death sample, 9953 (74%) and 5332 (65%), respectively, participated in the survey. Data on household income and household size from the NMIHS maternal questionnaire were used to classify women as living below or above the U.S. poverty threshold (in 1988: $12,092 for a family of four) (3). Because previous studies consistently demonstrated relatively high risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes among blacks, black infants were oversampled in NMIHS to allow for more detailed analysis of this group (4). Data are presented only for blacks and whites because numbers for other racial/ethnic groups were too small for meaningful analysis. An infant death was defined as the death of a live-born infant before his or her first birthday; a neonatal death, as the death of a live-born infant less than 28 days after birth; and a postneonatal death, as the death of a live-born infant 28364 days after birth (4). Data were statistically weighted to reflect the number of live births and infant deaths in the United States in 1988, and mortality rates were computed as estimates of the number of deaths per 1000 live births. Risk ratios were calculated by dividing the mortality rate for infants born to women living below the poverty threshold by the mortality rate for infants born to women living above the poverty threshold. Confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk ratios were computed using SUDAAN (5). Mortality rates and risk ratios for the relation of income to mortality were calculated for six sociodemographic and behavioral variables that consistently have been associated with both poverty and infant mortality (4): marital status, maternal age, cigarette smoking during pregnancy, timing of the first prenatal-care visit, maternal educational attainment, and race of the mother. Based on NMIHS, overall, 20.1% of the women who delivered live-born infants in 1988 reported a household income below the poverty level (Table_1). However, the percentage of women living below poverty level varied substantially in relation to specific risk characteristics (e.g., 6.8% of mothers with greater than 12 years of education compared with 45.8% of those with less than or equal to 11 years). Overall, 13.9% of mothers did not report information about household income. In the total 1988 NMIHS birth population, the overall estimated infant mortality rate was 10.0 per 1000 live-born infants. However, the rate varied by poverty level and was 8.3 for infants of women with incomes above poverty level and 13.5 for women with incomes below poverty level (risk ratio {RR}=1.6 {95% CI=1.5-1.8}) (Table_2). The overall association between poverty and infant mortality was stronger for postneonatal deaths (RR=2.0 {95% CI=1.8-2.3}) than for neonatal deaths (RR=1.4 {95% CI=1.3-1.6}).
Compared with the rates for infants of mothers living above poverty level, the rates for infants of mothers living below poverty level were consistently higher among women who were married, aged greater
than or equal to 18 years, received prenatal care during the first trimester of pregnancy, had greater than or equal to 12 years of education, and were either smokers or nonsmokers (Table_2). There was no relation between poverty and mortality rates for infants born to mothers aged less than or equal to 17 years or mothers who did not receive prenatal care during the first trimester of pregnancy. The association between poverty and infant mortality was stronger for infants born to white women (RR=1.5 {95% CI=1.3-1.7}) than for those born to black women (RR=1.1 {95% CI=1.01.3}). For blacks, while neonatal death rates were similar for infants born to women living above or below poverty level (RR=0.9 {95% CI=0.8-1.1}), postneonatal death rates were higher for infants of women living below poverty level (RR=1.6 {95% CI=1.4-1.9}).
95
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
96

Children from poor families are more likely to get killed because of accidents. Scotsman.com 06
(Scotsman.com, 07-07-06, Poverty link to death statistics, http://news.scotsman.com/scottishchildpoverty/Poverty-link-to-deathstatistics.2790433.jp)
CHILDREN from poorer families are 13 times more likely to die from injury than those who are well off, according to new research. They are at far greater risk of being killed in road accidents or house fires than those whose parents are in professional or managerial roles . A study of children, based on analysis of the
1981, 1991 and 2001 censuses in England and Wales, found there were 11.1 deaths from injury per 100,000 children in 1981, compared to four deaths per 100,000 children in 2001. But socio-economic inequalities remained - with death
rates 13 times higher among poor children compared to those whose parents had higher-level managerial or professional jobs, said the study in the British Medical Journal.
96
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
97
***DRUGS***
97
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
98
Poverty Drugs
Lower educational achievement or being poor increases the likelihood of alcohol and drug dependence.
(SandroGalea, ArijitNandi, and David Vlahov, Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies, New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 3-8-2004, Oxford Journals) The role of race/ethnicity in substance use initiation, while considered as a covariate in several of the studies listed here, has been assessed as the primary relation of concern in only a few studies. One prospective cohort study of 778 students from Seattle, Washington, elementary schools found that different factors were associated with initiation of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana by different races (43). Educational attainment was a more important predictor of initiation of substance use among Whites than among other races.In terms of neighborhood-level factors, we are aware of one study that has assessed the relation between neighborhood social factors and initiation of drug use. A prospective cohort study of 1,416 students found that neighborhood disadvantage was associated with initiation of drug use, with a more pronounced effect for illicit (cocaine) than for licit (tobacco, alcohol) drugs (40).In summary, while adverse family conditions during childhood appear to be an important social determinant of illicit drug use, there is no clear relation between familial socioeconomic status and initiation of illicit drug use. Characteristics of social networks, particularly drug use in the peer network, are prominently studied as social determinants of initiating illicit drug use. However, few studies have been designed to test competing familial or peer network influences. It is likely that individual characteristics, including gender and race, modify the association of adverse family conditions and social network characteristics with initiation of drug use. There is a paucity of studies assessing the relation between other social determinants, particularly contextual determinants, and initiation of drug use, although one study has shown that neighborhood socioeconomic status is associated with initiation of drug use (40).Use and misuseCigarettes and alcohol. The role of individual race/ethnicity as a determinant of licit and illicit drug use is controversial, and a full discussion is again beyond the scope of this review. In brief, while there are racial/ethnic disparities in substance use (3), most studies suggest that these differences are
attributable primarily to differences in socioeconomic status or to availability of drugs rather than to race/ethnicity itself (44) (table 2). In the United States, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (3) has long shown socioeconomic differences in cigarette, alcohol, and illicit substance use. Persons reporting lower income describe a higher prevalence of cigarette and illicit substance use but a lower prevalence of alcohol use (3). Results from another US population survey have shown an independent association between a higher prevalence of current smoking and working-class jobs, low educational achievement, and low income (45).Similar findings have been documented in other settings. For example, in a large cross-sectional German survey, a higher prevalence of smoking was found among persons who were unemployed or who had lower educational attainment (46). These cross-sectional findings are limited by the possibility of social selection; that is, use of substances
is causally associated with lower socioeconomic status. However, three cohort studies, one in the United Kingdom (47) and two in the United States (48, 49), have shown that socioeconomic status influences adult smoking behavior (both US studies showed this finding to be the case independent of adolescent smoking) and that socioeconomic conditions over the life course are associated with increased smoking rates among persons of lower socioeconomic status. Additionally, a
prospective cohort study assessing the relation between unemployment and substance use found that men who had experienced more than 3 years of accumulated unemployment between the ages of 16 and 33 years were more likely to smoke and to engage in problem drinking than were men who had never been unemployed (50).Multiple studies (12, 51, 52) have associated social network peer smoking with a greater
likelihood of smoking. Similarly, a number of epidemiologic studies from different countries have found that family and social network substance use and norms about substance use are associated with alcohol use and misuse (20, 5357). For example, a cross-sectional assessment of 42,862 adults found that the percentage of alcoholic relatives was positively associated with the likelihood of developing alcohol dependence among alcohol drinkers (20). Although few studies have focused on comparing the relative contribution of family and social network norms, one cross-sectional study of 27,000 high school students in Utah showed that better family bonds were associated with less alcohol drinking among adolescents, although this finding was hypothesized to be mediated by social network involvement, whereby adolescents with stronger family bonds had fewer members of their social network who used substances (58). In one study designed to assess social influences on alcohol dependence among women, drinking among social networks, poor social support, and
98
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
99
lower socioeconomic status (characterized by education and employment) were all associated with a greater likelihood of alcohol dependence or abuse (55). A cross-sectional study of 9,762 adults from 42 urban communities in the
United States found that lower socioeconomic status was associated with a greater likelihood of alcohol dependence (59). This study also found that neighborhood drug availability and norms were associated with alcohol dependence.
99
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
100
Poverty Drugs
Homelessness and other disadvantageous circumstances lead to greater illicit drug use. Galea, Nandi, and Vlahov 04
(SandroGalea, ArijitNandi, and David Vlahov, Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies, New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 3-8-2004, Oxford Journals)
There is a substantial literature on the role of social network and family factors as determinants of initiation of illicit drug use. In a prospective cohort study of 996 adolescents in Sydney, Australia,
Illicit drugs. followed for 1 year, characteristics of ones social networks (particularly drug use in the social network) were associated with likelihood of initiating marijuana use (23). Similarly, prospective cohort studies of 3,021 youth in Munich, Germany, and of 1,725 US youth found that peer drug use was associated with incident cannabis use (24, 25). Measures of familial disadvantage (including single parenting and low familial socioeconomic status) were also associated with incident cannabis use in both studies. Of note, in the US study, familial and social network characteristics were important determinants of incident marijuana use by men only; among women, history of victimization was the most consistently important predictor (25). In addition, in the US study, urbanicity was associated with initiation of marijuana use, although no attempt was made to identify the characteristics of urban living that may be associated with such initiation.Social network characteristics, and to a lesser extent familial characteristics, are also the primary social factors identified in initiation of heroin or cocaine use. Social network characteristics that have been associated with initiation of injection drug use include having partners who injected drugs (26) and having a high-risk social network (27). In one cross-sectional study of injection drug users during the first 3 weeks of their injection drug use (28), adverse family conditions were associated with a greater likelihood of initiating injection drug use. The latter study also identified individual social circumstances as determinants of initiation of injection, including homelessness and unemployment, although the cross-sectional nature of the study makes it difficult to identify temporal associations between these factors and initiation of injection (28).
Homelessness was also identified as an important predictor of initiating injection drug use in a prospective study of 415 adolescents in Montreal, Canada (29).Two different studies (30, 31) identified drug use by
family members as an important determinant of initiation of cocaine use; in a case-control study among African-American heroin users, lower familial socioeconomic status (based on the occupational status of the head of household during the respondents childhood) was associated with younger age at initiation of heroin use among persons born in the United States but not among migrants (32), suggesting both that familial characteristics may be differently associated with different use of drugs and that cultural determinants (migration) may modify these relations. In contrast to these findings, a study of Swedish conscripts found that lower familial socioeconomic status was associated with a lower likelihood of being offered drugs (33); a cross-sectional study of 262 California adolescents found no consistent relation between family socioeconomic status and initiation of substance use (34). Several studies of initiation of multiple drugs have assessed familial social characteristics as potential determinants of substance initiation, also with conflicting results. However, several studies (14, 22, 24, 3539) consistently associated disruption of family structure with initiation of adolescent drug use. Social network characteristics, particularly drug-using social networks, are also consistently associated with initiation of use of multiple substances. In general, studies have shown that persons with drugusing social networks are more likely to start drug use themselves (13, 16, 40, 41). Involvement in religious activities, possibly a proxy for involvement with non-drug-using social networks, has been shown to be associated with a lower likelihood of illicit drug initiation in one study (42).The relation between social determinants and drug use initiation is likely modified by several individual characteristics. In a study of 1,911 adolescents in South Carolina public schools, interactions were found between gender and family structure, with boys who did not have close family relationships being most likely to start using substances (22). Similarly, a study of 3,700 young adults in Ontario, Canada, found that the likelihood of early initiation of drugs was greater among male versus female adolescents (35).
100
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
101
***PATRIARCHY***
101
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
102
Poverty widens the sex gap between men and women. Christopher et al, 00 (Karen, University of Arizona, Paula England, University of Pennsylvania, Sara McLanahan, Princeton University, Katherin Ross, The Urban Institute, Tin Smeeding, Syracuse University, Gender Inequality in Poverty in Affluent Nations: The Role of Single Motherhood and the State, 7 January 2000, http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working%20papers/wp-genderinequality.pdf)
In thinking about possible causes of the gender gap in poverty rates, it is crucial to understand that poverty is measured at the household or family level in most all government and academic statistics. An individual is in poverty if s/he lives in a household whose total income falls below the poverty line. In households with an adult couple, either both partners are in poverty or neither is in poverty. So, if all adults were married to or cohabiting with a person of the other sex, there would be no sex gap in poverty.2 Thus, the sex gap in poverty exists because single women are poorer than single men. And for any size of the sex gap among singles, the overall sex gap will be larger if a higher proportion of the population is single.
PovertyPatriarchy
Poverty furthers gender inequality.

Feminist Media, 09 (How Does Poverty Relate to Gender Inequality?, 2009, http://www.agenda.org.za/content/view/41/88888942/) Poverty measurements give a single view of household poverty at a particular time. They don't capture changes over time. Women's livelihoods tend to be less secure than men's, so women and their dependents are vulnerable to sudden crises and repeated periods of impoverishment. Official economic breakdown also focuses only on production undertaken for cash. It ignores production for household consumption, as well as all the unpaid work of caring for family and household. This leads to inappropriate and unfair economic policies which ignore the vast contribution women make to development, and further entrench gender inequality.
Poverty disempowers women. New Era, 08 (Namibia; Women Financially Trapped, 11 March 2008, Lexis)
Economic empowerment of women was the focal point of this year" International Women's Day commemoration in Windhoek last Saturday. This year's commemoration with the theme "Financing for Gender Equality: Economic Empowerment of Women is the Key to Eradicate Gender Based Violence, HIV/AIDS and Poverty," aimed at empowering women on financial matters and to expose them to various funding and business opportunities. The event was attended by Namibia's businesswomen, entrepreneurs, female parliamentarians, representatives of various embassies and women heading some empowerment agencies. Minister of Finance Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila said the purpose of bringing a gender perspective to the budget is to ensure that economic policies address the needs of women and men of different backgrounds equitably. She added that women's financial empowerment is key to addressing some of the persistent social problems Namibia faces today.
102
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
103
PovertyGender Inequality
In order to address gender inequality we must first address poverty.
Liquid Africa, 05 (news service with financial information on African markets, Gender Equality Distant But Reachable, 20 May 2005, Lexis) This kind of cynicism about the goals was addressed directly by keynote speaker Carin Grown director of the poverty reduction and economic governance team at the International Centre for Research on Women "We as activists can bring many agenda items into the policy processes to implement the MDG goals " she told IPS "At the moment there is a lot of objection around the world and some skepticism not only about whether this is happening but whether it will happen " One argument said Grown who is also a senior associate on the UN millennium project task force on education and gender equality is that although promoting gender equality and empowering women is one of the MDGs that goal is the only place where the gender issue is addressed "In fact gender inequality is a central feature of poverty and any effort to reduce poverty must pay attention to the way that gender inequality makes women disproportionately vulnerable to poverty both income poverty and non income poverty " she said Gender equality is relevant to all the millennium goals Grown said But because gender inequality is deeply rooted in entrenched attitudes societal institutions and various types of market forces different countries need to adopt different steps she said The UN millennium project task force on education and gender equality suggests seven strategic priorities as prerequisites for achieving the gender equality and women empowerment goal
Poverty and gender inequality exacerbate one another. Business World, 05 (Ehden M. Llave, Gender inequality and economic devt, 3 January 2005, Lexis)
Much has been written about poverty and its causes. Over the years, the understanding of poverty has been transformed to a more multi-dimensional level from its early equation with income poverty. This new understanding includes poverty's human dimensions as well as its structural causes. As often cited, poverty exacerbates gender inequality. However, recent studies show that on one level, this kind of disparity, in fact, tends to slow economic growth and make the rise from poverty more difficult. This is why gender equality merits specific attention from policy makers, practitioners, and researchers in developing countries.
103
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
104
PovertyPatriarchy
Poverty causes normalized views of gender. Mutua, 01 (Athena, University of Denver College of Law, Why Retire the Feminization of Poverty Construct?, 2001, Lexis)
Specifically, the concept fails to adequately capture the dynamics at work in the creation and the maintenance of people, both women and men, in poverty. This is so particularly where poverty is the norm for both women and men, as it is in many U.S. communities of color and other national and sub-altern communities. n5 Further, the feminization of poverty construct, by inadequately reflecting the gender dynamics of poverty in these communities, may also unnecessarily strain the intra-community coalitions of men and women of multiple sexualities whose survival may be more intimately and immediately tied to and dependent on each other. n6 Moreover, because the construct relies on essentialized understandings of men and women, it may erase the experiences of and hinder coalition building with those "who transgress gender, moving through the categories of 'woman' and 'man.'" n7 Ultimately, the feminization of poverty concept should be retired because it may have served its purpose. This purpose is not to describe the existence of a recent but universal phenomenon n8 but to spawn the research, debate, and investigation that has generated alternative notions and frameworks for understanding the lived experiences and conditions of all people in poverty. n9 One of these notions or frameworks is simply [*1181] the idea and reality of "gendered poverty." n10 The notion of gendered poverty recognizes that gender relations are deeply embedded in the operation of market systems and other economic structures and that poverty itself is deeply gendered. n11 In other words, it summarizes research confirming that men and women often come to poverty through different processes, are maintained in poverty in different ways, and experience poverty differently. n12 Additionally, these gendered processes reflect and reinscribe the notion that gender is intransitive, n13 reproducing current gender and sex roles that limit individuals and groups. Unlike the discursive feminization of poverty construct, the notion of gendered poverty lacks some of the flare, moral indignation, and outrage that propelled women into coalitions (based on a sense of common experience) and inspired substantial research into the lives of poor women. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the notion of gendered poverty fails to capture the fact that even where women are not poorer than men, they tend to be more vulnerable to poverty than men. n14 In addition, the notion of gendered poverty does not, on its face, take into consideration the intersections of race, citizenship, and other conditions, which might deeply affect and be affected by various economic processes. [*1182] Nevertheless, the notion of gendered poverty informs research into the nature of poverty and market relations as they relate to women and men, respectively and specifically. It also appears much more amenable to attachments. So, for instance, one might talk about racialized gendered oppression, gendered racial poverty, racialized transgendered poverty, or racialized gendered imperialism. n15 Further, it potentially facilitates a broader range of coalitions, including coalitions of women, men, and transgendered people. Ultimately, however, neither a feminization of poverty nor a gendered poverty approach captures the range of subordinating structures that shape poverty. Therefore, an approach that seeks to understand the multidimensional nature of poverty and promotes antiessentialist, anti-subordination principles and practices might better unravel the ties that bind people in poverty and be more inclusive, permitting shared agendas for building coalitions. n16 In short, I argue that the feminization of poverty construct adequately captures the idea that gender identity, being a man or woman, determines, structures, shapes and influences an individual's access to resources and opportunities (e.g., jobs). It also captures the idea that women are more vulnerable to poverty than are men. Yet the construct creates, suggests, or facilitates a series of other problems and therefore should be retired. [*1183] First, it is unclear whether feminization of poverty means that more women are falling into poverty or that there are more poor women than there are poor men. Second, it suggests that women are always worse off or poorer than men. Third, although it requires a gender analysis, it focuses on women's poverty in a way that conflates the concept of gender with women. In other words, gender comes to mean and refer to women. One of the results of this conflation is that the gendered ways in which poor men experience poverty go unexplored and the opportunities available for men are presumed privileged and unlimited, even where the community as a whole is poor. Fourth, the feminization of poverty construct itself, but particularly when used as an advocacy tool, may strain intra-community coalitions by suggesting that women in a given community are worse off than men. Fifth, by essentializing gender, assuming that all women experience life in the same way regardless of race, class, sexuality, or nationality, n17 and assuming that gender roles are fixed for all and determined by biological sex, n18 the construct fails to capture and may erase the ways in which transgendered n19 individual's poverty is shaped by gender. It thereby, again, inhibits or strains coalitions with variously gendered people. And finally, both the feminization of poverty construct and the gendered poverty notion imply that gender is the predominate factor structuring and shaping poverty, particularly women's poverty, even in communities of color or those communities where people have not recently fallen into poverty but are already poor. A multidimensional approach that includes a gender analysis may be more illuminating in analyzing poverty in these communities.
104
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
105
***CLASSISM***
105
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
106 Poverty serves to classify low-income women as welfare abusers unfit for motherhood. Chamberlain and Hardisty, 08 (Pam and Jean, The Public Eye Magazine Vo. 14 No. 1, Reproducing Patriarchy: Reproductive Rights Under Siege, 2008, http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v14n1/ReproPatriarch-12.html)
In the case of abortion, the various sectors of the anti-abortion movement treat all women equally. No matter what race or class, women should not have abortions. But in the larger sphere of reproductive rights-the rights to conceive, bear, and raise children-prolife strategists apply a double standard. Middle and upper class white women should bear children and stay at home to raise them. Single, low-income women (especially low-income women of color), and immigrant women should limit their childbearing and should work outside the home to support their children. Even a cursory examination of the right's policy agenda demonstrates that, when the focus is changed from abortion to broader reproductive freedom, the right applies race and class criteria that distinguish between the rights of white, middle-class women and low-income women of color. The right has viciously attacked welfare mothers for their "sexuality" and immigrant women for bearing "too many" children.34 In its worldview, "excessive" childbearing by low-income, single women causes poverty. To eliminate poverty, it is necessary to prevent that childbearing.35 Right-wing activists reserve their most vicious attacks for these groups of women, promoting negative stereotypes of low-income women of all races as dependent, irresponsible, prone to addictions, and inadequate mothers.36 They use these stereotypes to inflame public opinion against all sexual behavior that lies outside the narrow parameters of right-wing ideology.
PovertyClassism
106
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
107
***RACISM***
107
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
108
PovertyPartiarchy/Racism
Poverty oppresses African American women through intersections between racism and patriarchy.
Mandel, 05 (Beth, Associate Member of the University of Cincinnati Law Review, COMMENT AND CASENOTE: THE WHITE FIST OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM: RACISM, PATRIARCHY, AND THE PRESUMPTIVE REMOVAL OF CHILDREN FROM VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NICHOLSON V. WILLIAMS, Spring 2005, Lexis) Relying heavily on feminist theory, in particular the work of Dorothy E. Roberts, this Comment uses an intersectionality framework to analyze the experience of battered women pinned under the thumb of New York's Child Welfare System. In doing so, this Comment addresses the particular oppression experienced by Black mothers resulting from the interaction of racism and patriarchy, an interaction that promotes the continual punishment of Black mothers within ACS. Part II will lay the foundation of this analysis by giving an overview of ACS policy and practice with regard to situations of domestic violence and child removal. Part III will examine the underlying biases and discriminating forces leading to the punishment of Black mothers within the child welfare system. Finally, this Comment will suggest that an [*1133] appropriate solution must be one that not only ensures the proper and unbiased treatment of Black mothers within the child welfare system, but also one that addresses the underlying forces that push women into the system in the first place.
Patriarchy and racism subordinate black mothers and cause domestic violence.
Mandel, 05 (Beth, Associate Member of the University of Cincinnati Law Review, COMMENT AND CASENOTE: THE WHITE FIST OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM: RACISM, PATRIARCHY, AND THE PRESUMPTIVE REMOVAL OF CHILDREN FROM VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NICHOLSON V. WILLIAMS, Spring 2005, Lexis) This Part argues that in order to fully understand ACS's abuse of the mothers involved in this litigation, race must be addressed. More specifically, the effects of racism and patriarchy, two forces that Roberts describes as "mutually supporting systems of domination," n120 must be explored. This Part first discusses the ways in which the historical denigration of Black motherhood and the current discrimination of Black women relating to poverty and domestic violence, combine to make Black battered mothers more susceptible to the types of improper state practices seen in Nicholson. It then considers how racism and patriarchy affect battered Black women in the context of New York City's child welfare system and suggests an appropriate response. A. Poverty, Domestic Violence, and the Denigration of Black Mothers The current punishment of battered Black mothers in the child welfare system likely is not the result of individual caseworkers' outward discrimination, but rather is caused by deep-rooted stereotypes and institutional discrimination that affect Black women at all levels, often before they even reach the child welfare system. To understand this, one must examine the historical denigration of Black women and the [*1151] way these stereotypes enable the continued discrimination against Black women in relation to poverty and domestic violence.
108
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
109
PovertyRacism
Minority women living in poverty are prone to be sterilized in order to create the perfect race.
Chamberlain and Hardisty, 08 (Pam and Jean, The Public Eye Magazine Vo. 14 No. 1, Reproducing Patriarchy: Reproductive Rights Under Siege, 2008, http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v14n1/ReproPatriarch-12.html) These policies designed to control the child-bearing of poor women are but the latest in a series of practices that date back to the eugenics movement of the 19th century, which promoted, racial theories of "fitness" and "unfitness." During this time of a significantly declining birth rate within the white population, politicians and eugenicists raised the specter of white "race suicide." The eugenics movement, which was adopted briefly by the birth control movement in the early 20th century, advocated a higher birthrate for white, middle class, "fit" women and a lower birthrate (aided by birth control) for poor women, especially poor "unfit" women of color and immigrant women.37 The best-known method of denying a woman her right to have children is sterilization abuse. Sterilization is a medical procedure that, like abortion, often is experienced differently in low-income communities of color and in middle-class white communities. Historically, doctors have made it difficult for white women, especially middle-class white women, to choose to be sterilized: insisting, for example, that they come back a second time after they have taken time to "think about it." The attitude of the same medical professionals toward women of color and poor white women has been dramatically different. In these instances, many doctors have long encouraged the procedure, sometimes sterilizing these women without their consent through manipulation or actual deceit. By 1968, for example, a campaign by private agencies and the Puerto Rican government resulted in the sterilization of one-third of Puerto Rican women of childbearing age. A similar campaign in the 1970s resulted in the sterilization of 25 percent of Indian women living on reservations.
Poverty perpetuates racist stereotypes about black women.

Mandel, 05 (Beth, Associate Member of the University of Cincinnati Law Review, COMMENT AND CASENOTE: THE WHITE FIST OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM: RACISM, PATRIARCHY, AND THE PRESUMPTIVE REMOVAL OF CHILDREN FROM VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NICHOLSON V. WILLIAMS, Spring 2005, Lexis) Poverty, Welfare, and Black Mothers Racist, patriarchal notions of Black motherhood emerge in the context of poverty and welfare. In fact, the welfare system is so pervaded by these ideologies that it does more to further the oppression of Black mothers than it does to assist them in climbing out of poverty. Black individuals are more than twice as likely as white individuals to be living in poverty. n140 The gap is even greater among women and children: Black women and children are three times as likely as white women and children to fall below the poverty line. n141 This results in greater governmental control of Black families, and particularly Black mothers. Furthermore, the portrayal of Black women in the general welfare context is directly related to the discrimination against them in the child welfare system. Rather than looking at the underlying social causes of poverty-such as perpetuating cycles of poverty; lack of adequate social services, including public education and healthcare; and the residual effects of centuries of patriarchal racism-modern welfare discourse scapegoats poor Black mothers and blames poverty on the breakdown of the nuclear family and the alleged "inherent degeneracy" of the Black race. n142 Old stereotypes of Black women as lazy and sexually promiscuous play out in punitive welfare laws that target the Black welfare queen, an immoral, unfit mother without a work ethic who has children solely to get more money from the government. n143 Through marriage incentives pushing the nuclear family, the government hopes to return the control and burden of these women back to individual men. n144 These policies serve only to reinforce traditional gender roles, push women into often unwanted relationships, and avoid examination of the [*1155] "economic and social forces that marginalize Black single mothers." n145 Although such policies are problematic on a broad scale, they are particularly dangerous for women in violent relationships. Not only do these incentives send the message that the family is paramount and that to be a good mother a woman must do everything to keep the family together, but they may actually make it financially impossible for many poor women to leave their battering spouses.
109
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
110
***LAUNDRY LIST***
110
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
111
Poverty BadLaundry List

Poverty can cause malnutrition, bad health, lack of education, increased mortality, homelessness, unsafe environments, discrimination, and exclusion.
Feminist Media, 09 (How Does Poverty Relate to Gender Inequality?, 2009, http://www.agenda.org.za/content/view/41/88888942/) At the Beijing Platform of Action in 1996 the United Nations stated that poverty has various manifestations, including lack of food and productive resources sufficient to ensure a sustainable livelihood; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increasing morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and political life. It occurs in all countries - as mass poverty in many developing countries and as pockets of poverty in developed countries.
111
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
112
***SEX TRAFFICKING***
112
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
113
PovertySex Trafficking
Deepening poverty empirically leads to increased sex trafficking. Ferreira, 00 (Emsie, Child sex trafficking rising in S. Africa as poverty spreads: survey, 22 November 2000, Lexis) Child sex trafficking is on the rise in South Africa, driven by deepening poverty that sometimes sees a family force a child into prostitution as its only source of income, a report released Wednesday states. The report says there are an estimated 28,000 child prostitutes in the country and that girls as young as four are being are sold to South Africans and foreigners for sex. It was drafted by the non-governmental organisation Molo Songololo, whose researchers documented child prostitution in four of country's nine provinces through interviews with social workers, police and prostitutes in the first half of this year. Senior researcher Karen Koen told AFP they found there had, ironically, been an increase in children being abducted and sold for sex since the country became a democracy in 1994, along with an increase in unemployment and poverty. "There has been a real increase since 1994, in some ways because there has been an increase in poverty, because transformation means more people need services, because there is an increase in sexual tourism and because attitudes to children have changed, they are no longer just children," she said. The researchers found that in Cape Town -- where an estimated quarter of the prostitutes are under-age -- poor girls were lured into sex work through newspaper advertisements, and that their services were again advertised in papers under titles like "Barely legal". According to Molo Songololo, child prostitutes are one of the main sources of income for the city's dozens of well-established gangs. They found 13 girls, mostly from the Cape Flats -- a sprawl of poor mixed-race suburbs south of the city -- who had been abducted by a gangster to a house where they were held prisoner and abused by his cronies, who also brought in customers. The girls recounted that they were tattoed with his name, beaten and gang-raped when they tried to leave, taught to steal clients' money and firearms, and were not given any of the money they earned. Koen said sex trafficking appeared to be most prevalent in Cape Town and in Gauteng, which includes Johannesburg and Pretoria. Children are often taken to Johannesburg by men from rural areas to be used as a source of income in South Africa's biggest city. Some of the children recounted that they were too scared to go to the police because they too were involved in sex rings, Koen said.
113
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
114
PovertyTrafficking
Poverty fuels conditions that cause sex trafficking. Urrutia, 01 (Monica, The Globe and Mail, Causes of Prostitution, 18 December 2001, Lexis) The Philippines, according to a 1998 International Labour Organization study, has more than 600,000 prostitutes within its borders, the most in Southeast Asia. This includes 100,000 child prostitutes. With massive unemployment and more than 80 per cent of the population living below the poverty line, women and children are left with no choice. Why would they put themselves in danger of increased violence in sex trafficking if not to ensure their survival? Sex trafficking is not a "cottage industry"; it is a global business for profit. The phenomenon of sex tours in the Philippines or the exporting of Filipino mail-order brides has been increasing, demonstrating the intensifying commodification of women and children. It is driven by the demand of men from industrialized countries, including Canada, and fuelled by governments, such as that in the Philippines, which use these women to pay off massive foreign debt. Poverty brings women into sex trade. The International Herald Tribune, 06 (Jessica Neuwirth, The World Cup and the johns; Sex trafficking and prostitution, 11 April 2006, Lexis) Misconceived efforts to distinguish the women forced into prostitution from those who consent to their sexual exploitation fail to recognize the spectrum of coercion that draws on the force of poverty as much as the force of violence to bring women into the trade. Those who consider prostitution to be an expression of sexual rights fail to recognize the distinction between sex and commercial sexual exploitation, positioning the discourse as if one cannot be for sex and at the same time against exploitation. What about the right of women and girls not to be prostituted the right to education, employment and real choices they do not currently have? It is time to shift the focus from those who are prostituted to the traffickers, pimps and johns who comprise the chain of exploitation in the commercial sex industry. The invisibility of the john is matched only by the invisibility of the harm done to the trafficked and prostituted women he buys. If 40,000 women will be sold for sex during the World Cup, how many johns will buy them? The head of Sweden's football federation, Lars-Ake Lagrell, has pledged that players with the country's national team will not use any brothels at the World Cup in Germany. Sweden has developed exemplary legislation, subjecting johns to prosecution for commercial sexual exploitation not those who are exploited. It is time to follow Sweden's lead in acknowledging the link between prostitution and sex trafficking and addressing the commercial sex industry for what it is: the systematic subordination of women and girls through sexual exploitation.
114
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
115
Poverty Sex Trafficking

Lack of options from poverty causes sex trafficking. Shah, 07 (Svati Professor and Faculty Fellow, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program, Department of Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University, Distinguishing Poverty and Trafficking: Lessons from Field Research in Mumbai, Fall 2007, Lexis) Discourses on human trafficking that have focused on sexual exploitation and prostitution, both forced and consensual, have had a vexed relationship with the question of poverty. While trafficking is clearly related to economic vulnerability and the lack of economic power, discourses on human trafficking have tended to conflate poverty with a generalized lack of agency, such that poverty also becomes inextricable and, in some representations, co-equal with trafficking itself. In other words, conflating human trafficking with poverty has tended to render "poverty" itself as an agent of trafficking. If poverty essentially "trafficks" human beings into underground economic sectors, including prostitution, then poor people are necessarily rendered as nonagentative beings with respect to illegal and underground strategies for economic survival. Two examples of this perspective on poverty in its relationship to trafficking are the Swedish government's 2003 report entitled Poverty and Trafficking in Human Beings: A Strategy for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings Through Swedish International Development Cooperation, n3 and a 2006 article published on the Captive Daughters website entitled Poverty and Sex Trafficking. n4 In the Swedish government's report, poverty and trafficking are linked because "[p]eople become the victims of human traffickers mainly due to inequitable resource allocation and the absence of viable sources of income. Families have no assets and incomes are inadequate. In the countryside, agriculture is less profitable than formerly and land has become increasingly scarce." n5 Similarly, according to the Captive Daughters report: What we do know is that poverty drives sex trafficking, and that sex trafficking as the delivery system for prostitution means that each day scores of young, poor women and girls will turn to sex trafficking and prostitution as a means to [*443] provide for themselves, and for their families, because they have no other choice. The hope is that funds earmarked for fighting poverty will eventually fight sex trafficking, too, putting an end to this exploitative practice by offering viable economic options for poverty-stricken women and girls in developing nations who want to work. n6
115
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
116
POVERTY GOOD, OMG.
116
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
117
***BEES***
117
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
118
Bees module 1/3

Less Poverty Means More Phones
Asheeta Bhavnani, Researcher @ World Bank, 8 [June 15, ICT Policy Division, The Rural of Mobile Phones in Sustainable Rural Poverty Reduction, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/11/000334955_ 20080711061638/Rendered/INDEX/446780WP0Box321bile1Phones01PUBLIC1.txt] A recent economic study carried out by World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC); (WRI, IFC, 2007) entitled The Next Four Billion, to determine how poor people living in developing countries spent their money found that even very poor families were buying cell phones and airtime, usually in the form of prepaid cards. Another finding was that as their family's income grew - from $1 per day to $4, for example - their spending on ICT increased faster than spending in any other category, including
education, health, and housing. Cell phone radiation collapses bee colonies Lean and Shawcross, staff writers for The Independent, 07 (4-15-2007, Geoffrey and Harriet, Are mobile phones wiping out
our bees? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-mobile-phones-wiping-out-our-bees-444768.html
It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail. They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well. The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives. The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.
CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned. Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."
The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left". No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.
118
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
119
Bees module 2/3

Bees are key to biodiversity- crop pollination Kluser and Peduzzi 07 (Stephane and Pascal, 2007, United Nations Environment Programme, Global Pollinator Decline: A
Literature Review http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/article_lit_review_20071129.pdf
We are currently enduring the 6th mass extinction, losing between 1 - 10 % of biodiversity per decade 1 , mostly as a result of habitat loss, pest invasion (exotics), pollution, over harvesting and disease 2 . Why care ? Biodiversity losses arent only affecting natural ecosystems but also the services they provided and some of them are vital for human societies amongst other the presence of oxygen into the atmosphere, renewing of soils (from bacteria, worms, ) and pollination the transfer of pollen from one flower to another is critical to fruit and seed production, and is often provided by insects and other animals on the hunt for nectar, pollen or other floral rewards. Until very recently, most farmers considered pollination as one of nature's many "free services", so taken for granted that it has rarely figured as an "agricultural input" or even as a subject in agricultural science courses 3 . This assumption has apparently become obsolete as these changes are already being illustrated, need to be monitored and mitigated in the near future, posing threats to the integrity of biodiversity, global food webs and even ultimately to human health. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the U.N. 4 estimates that of the slightly more than 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food supplies for 146 countries, 71 are bee-pollinated (mainly by wild bees), and several others are pollinated by thrips, wasps, flies, beetles, moths and other insects. In Europe alone,
84% of the 264 crop species are animal-pollinated and 4 000 vegetable species have their life assured thanks to the pollination of the bees 5 . Pollinators are essential for the reproduction of many wild flowers and crops: for one out of every three bites eaten, one can thank a bee, butterfly, bat, bird or other pollinator 6 . As Simon Potts, (University of Reading) says: "The economic value of pollination worldwide is thought to be between 30 and 70 billion each year" [i.e. 45 - 100 billions ]. Any loss in biodiversity is a matter of public concern, but losses of pollinating
insects may be particularly troublesome because of the potential effects on plant reproduction and hence on food supply security. Many agricultural crops and natural plant populations are dependent on pollination
and often on the services provided by wild, unmanaged, pollinator communities
119
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
120
Bees module 3/3

Loss of biodiversity results in extinction. (Diner, David N. B.S. Recipient. Ohio State University. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio State University. LL.M. The Judge Advocate Generals School. United States Army. Judge Advocates Generals Corps. United States Army. The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Whos Endangering Whom? Military Law Review. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994. Lexis-Nexis.)
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a singleminded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 Inpast mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet theworld moved forward,and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now?The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems arecharacterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. Theseecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . .[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Likea mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
120
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
121
Cell phones expanding to poor

Cell Phones Expanding to Poor
Asheeta Bhavnani, Researcher @ World Bank, 8 [June 15, ICT Policy Division, The Rural of Mobile Phones in Sustainable Rural Poverty Reduction, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/11/000334955_ 20080711061638/Rendered/INDEX/446780WP0Box321bile1Phones01PUBLIC1.txt] Given the unprecedented growth of affordability and coverage of mobile telephony services and its increasing importance as a means of two way communication, the scope of this paper is limited to the role of mobile telephony in sustainable rural poverty reduction in developing countries. The focus on mobile telephony is further justified by the following facts: (a) Affordability (Demand-Side): The many pricing models offer affordability and choice, even for very
low-income customers (cheap handsets, micro prepayments, top-up cards). Innovative ways of mobile phone access, which allow sharing of phones through SIM cards and payments for air time through microprepayment, promote even more rapid adoption by the poor; (b) Affordability (Supply-Side): E stablishing mobile masts is a relatively inexpensive way of serving large & remote rural areas , compared to last
mile cable for fixed line telephony. (c) Flexibility: It is not pricing models that are flexible: usages are also. Mobiles can be used for text and voice and are two-way communications (i.e., more flexible than radio/TV). ( d) Low
Barriers to Entry: In response to factors above, mobile has become the most easily accessible and ubiquitous communications device in rural areas. Easy availability of low priced new handsets with basic
features and emergence of secondary markets for used for even the poorest of the poor. devices, whose prices are even lower, make them within reach
Cell Phones Expanding

Asheeta Bhavnani, Researcher @ World Bank, 8 [June 15, ICT Policy Division, The Rural of Mobile Phones in Sustainable Rural Poverty Reduction, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/11/000334955_ 20080711061638/Rendered/INDEX/446780WP0Box321bile1Phones01PUBLIC1.txt]
Mobile phones have become the primary form of telecommunication in both developed and developing countries. Globally, mobile phone networks play the same role that fixed-line phone networks did in facilitating growth in Europe & North America in the 20th century. The industry has experienced explosive growth in a relatively short time span. The first billion mobile phones took around 20 years to sell worldwide. The second billion were sold in four years. The third billion were sold in two years. Coverage has expanded and mobile phone subscriptions in developing countries have increased by over 500% since 2000 (Wireless Intelligence 2007). It is estimated that over 50% of the world's population will own a
mobile phone and that 80% of the world's population will live within the range of a cellular network, by the end of 2008. The projections for future performance are simnilarly impressive to those tracking past performance. By 2010, GSMA projects that 90% of the world will be covered by mobile networks and mobile communication will deliver data, internet and voice services to more than 5 billion people by 2015 ?double the number connected today (GSMA, 2007).
121
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
122
Ext. Less poverty more phones

ICT Diffusion Linked to Income
Asheeta Bhavnani, Researcher @ World Bank, 8 [June 15, ICT Policy Division, The Rural of Mobile Phones in Sustainable Rural Poverty Reduction, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/11/000334955_ 20080711061638/Rendered/INDEX/446780WP0Box321bile1Phones01PUBLIC1.txt] Therefore, it is important to understand that the drivers of growth in the developed world may differ from the drivers of growth in the developing world. Traditionally, studies have shown that firms in countries with higher levels of income/productivity have higher incentive to invest in efficiency-enhancing ICT than firms in countries with low income levels. A number of factors influence the decision whether or not to invest in ICT. High costs, lack of competition, lack of relevant skills for effective use of ICT could all be inhibitors (Caseli & Coleman, 2001). Studies also show that levels of education are positively correlated with ICT diffusion. Gust and Marquez (2002) found that restrictions in labor/product markets affect levels of ICT investment.
122
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
123
Ext. Cell phones hurt bees

Cell phone radiation hurts bees navigation systems Haines 07 (Lester, April 16th, staff writer for The Register, Radiation link to Colony Collapse Disorder?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/16/ccd_research/
Experts have identified a possible contributory cause of the unexplained and drastic decline in honeybee numbers - mobile phone radiation. Beekeepers worldwide have reported increasing incidents of "Colony Collapse Disorder", a phenomenon normally evident between late summer and early spring as older bees die, " leaving behind the queen and young workers not yet ready to forage for pollen and nectar and insufficient in number to maintain the colony", as honeybee health specialist Vita puts it. The US has been particularly hard-hit by CCD. Twenty-four states earlier this year reported "heavy losses", and hives in Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the UK have also been affected.
Experts have offered harmful pesticides, increased solar radiation, falling queen fertility, and use of unauthorised bee treatments as possible causes of CCD. Now, though, German researchers at Landau university have found that mobile phone signals can interfere with bees' "navigation systems". According to The Telegraph, the scientists placed "cordless-phone docking units*, which emit electromagnetic radiation, into beehives". They found that "in some cases, 70 per cent of bees exposed to radiation failed to find their way
back to the hive after searching for pollen and nectar".

Brian Dennis, of the UK's Bee Improvement and Bee Breeding Association, said: "There is so much being said about CCD in America and [radiation] hasn't been mentioned. Until someone does a large study, it is hard to be sure."
Radiation from mobile phones confuses bees Karim (Mohammed el Hassan Abdul Mobile Phones Radiation Hazards)
Another added concern and an alarming situation as well, rises from a report gathered from the U.S. and Europe concerning the systematic disappearance of many of bees colonies. Apiarists from all over the western countries reported
the sudden shrinking of the widespread bee-hives that may invoke the notion of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). When this syndrome happens, for a reason or another, all bees flee the site and are never found again. In addition, many other termites and wildlife insects that raid the hive for honey will also disappear. Those insects, the bees and termites, are responsible for spreading the pollens that enhance plantation fertility. Consequently, farm crops will dwindle and a major setback will inflect foodproduction.3The theory behind this is that radiation from mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the home loving bees from finding their way back to their hives. The West Coast of USA is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per
cent missing on the East Coast John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40hives have been abruptly abandoned. German research has long shown that bees behavior change near power transmission lines. A limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause . Dr George
Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."
123
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
124
Ext. Bees key to biodiversity

Bees are key to biodiversity- CCD collapses global food supply Environmental Quality Management 07 (Winter 2007, The Case of the Disappearing Honeybees: An Environmental
Harbinger? http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=106&sid=f69bfbd8-14fb-403b-b96e-f0041d05d96f%40sessionmgr104) If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man . This widely cited quote has been attributed to Albert Einsteinalthough debunkers of urban legends say it is doubtful that he actually authored it. Regardless of the source, however, this statement underscores the important role bees
play within the ecosystem and in the modern human food web. In order to bear fruit, three-quarters of all flowering plants, including most food crops, rely on pollinators for fertilization. Honeybees are the insects most important to the human food chain. They are the principal pollinators for hundreds of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and flowers. But what if we lost this important source of pollination? Colony Collapse Disorder Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is a bizarre, recently experienced phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive colony virtually vanish into thin air, leaving the vacated hive and
precious honey supply behind. Beekeepers are watching their hives become bare in a matter of weeks, sometimes days. This makes CCD difficult to study. For example, a beekeeper who recently traveled with two truckloads of bees to California for pollination found nearly all of his bees gone or dead upon arrival. Commercial beekeepers are
reporting losses of 50 to 90 percent, an unprecedented level even for an industry accustomed to dieoffs. Many scientists are becoming increasingly alarmed at this epidemic. Honeybees pollinate onethird of the food eaten by Americans . Some worry that whats shaping up to be a honeybee catastrophe could disrupt the national or even global food supply. The United States House of Representatives Committee on
Agriculture has held hearings on the missing bee phenomenon (see Berenbaum, 2007) (11).
Bees are key to crops and biodiversity

Ingrid H. Williams, AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research, 2002, Insect Pollination and Crop Production: A European Perspective . IN: Kevan P & Imperatriz Fonseca VL (eds) - Pollinating Bees - The Conservation Link Between Agriculture and Nature - Ministry of Environment / Braslia. p.59-65. http://www.webbee.org.br/bpi/pdfs/livro_02_willians.pdf The STOA report documents serious regional losses of bumble bee species, marked decreases in the numbers of managed honey bees and the listing of numerous species of solitary bee in national Red Data Books. It recognises that: a) the distribution and abundance of bees depends largely on the availability of a seasonal succession of forage flowers and nest sites; b) fragmentation and destruction of semi-natural habitats, particularly open biotypes such as garique, heaths, unimproved grassland and undisturbed areas of farmland, is a cause of the decline of wild bee populations and of reduced food supply for honey bees; c) intensively cultivated arable land is an inhospitable environment for bees. It warns that the impact of inadequate populations of pollinators will be far reaching. If bee pollinated flowers do not set seed, the integrity of europe's remaining semi-natural vegetation will be destroyed. This in turn will
deprive many other herbivorous or seed-eating insects, birds and small mammals of their host plants and/or food, with consequent further loss of species diversity. Crops dependent on pollination by bees will give decreased yields and may no longer be grown profitably. Their loss will cause further depletion of nectar resources for the remaining bees. This vicious circle, resulting from the mutual interdependence of bee-pollinated plant and pollinator, makes the future survival of both inextricably linked. it concludes that appropriate agricultural and environmental policies and co-ordinated research and development
programmes are needed urgently to ensure adequate pollination of bee-pollinated crops and wild flowers in the European Union.
124
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
125
Ext. Biodiversity key

Natural and agricultural biodiversity key
Miguel A. Altieri, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, role of biodiversity in agroecosystems http://agroecology.pbworks.com/f/ecolrolebiodiv.pdf
1999, The ecological
Biodiversity refers to all species of plants, animals and micro-organisms existing and interacting within an ecosystem (Vandermeer and Perfecto, 1995). Natural biodiversity has provided the foundation for all agricultural plants and animals. The entire range of the domestic crops used in world agriculture is derived from wild species that have been modied through domestication, selective breeding and hybridization. Most remaining world centers of diversity contain populations of variable and adaptable landraces as well as wild and weedy relatives of crops, all of which provide valuable genetic resources for crop improvement (Harlan, 1975). or grassland prevents soil erosion, replenishes ground water and controls ooding by enhancing inltration and reducing water runoff (Perry, 1994). In agricultural systems, biodiversity performs ecosystem services beyond production of food, ber, fuel, and income. Examples include recycling of nutrients, control of local microclimate, regulation of local hydrological processes, regulation of the abundance of undesirable organisms, and detoxication of noxious chemicals. These renewal processes and ecosystem services are largely biological, therefore their persistence depends upon maintenance of biological diversity (Altieri, 1994). When these natural services are lost due to biological
simplication, the economic and environmental costs can be quite signicant. Eco- nomically, in agriculture the burdens include the need to supply crops with costly external inputs, because agroecosystems deprived of basic regulating functional components lack the capacity to sponsor their own soil fertility and pest regulation. Often the costs involve a reduction in the quality of life due to decreased soil, water, and food quality when pesticide and/or nitrate contamination occurs.
125
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
126
Poor have cell phones now

Most Poor Have Cell phones
Robert Rector, Fellow @ Heritage, 8 [Sept http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/tst040209b.cfm] 25, Understanding and Reducing Poverty in America,
On the other hand, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, around sixty percent of poor households have cell phones and a third have telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem during the year such as overcrowding, temporary food shortages, or difficulty getting medical care.
Poor Dependent Solely on Cell Phones Now

Nicholas P. Sullivan, Fellow @ New Millennium Research, 8 [April, Cell Phones Provide Significant Economic Gains for LowIncome American Households, http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Sullivan_Report_032608.pdf] At the same time, more households are relying on mobile phones exclusively. In low-income segments of the population, particularly Hispanics and households with less than $35,000 income, large numbers are turning to the prepaid phone as their only phone.Whether this is out of choice or necessity is unclear. But it seems likely that many of these households may have lost both landline and wireless phones, dont have the credit to re-subscribe, and adopt prepaid as a way to rejoin the communications grid.
126
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
127
Poverty decreases cell phones

Poverty Decreases Cell Phone Use New Millennium Research 8 [June, Sullivan Release, www.newmillenniumresearch.org/news/Sullivan_Release_032608.pdf]
Entitled Cell Phones Provide Significant Economic Gains for Low-Income American Households, the groundbreaking Sullivan study is based on two surveys: a scientific poll by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of 1,005 Americans and a statistically large online sampling of 110,000 prepaid cell phone users. The study is the first in the U.S. to zero in on potential economic and public safety benefits to those in the bottom two quintiles of household income (less than $35,000), who are much less likely to own cell phones. According to the Sullivan report, those who do not now own a cell phone tend to be older (37 percent are retired), less educated (29 percent have a high school education or less), low income (38 percent make less than $35,000 a year) or unemployed (30 percent).
Poverty Reduces Cell Phone Usage New Millennium Research 8 [June, Sullivan Release, www.newmillenniumresearch.org/news/Sullivan_Release_032608.pdf] Study author Nicholas P. Sullivan said: Millions of Americans who are most in need are missing out today on the economic gains that other Americans attribute to their cell phones. The overall conclusion in this study is
that the cell phone is extremely important to Americans for personal safety, and a huge boon to an individuals potential economic productivity and earning power. The cell phone is particularly important to blue collar, minority, less educated and low-income segments of Americans, even though those groups are far less likely to own
cell phones.
Poverty Reduces Cell Phone Use

Nicholas P. Sullivan, Fellow @ New Millennium Research, 8 [April, Cell Phones Provide Significant Economic Gains for LowIncome American Households, http://www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Sullivan_Report_032608.pdf]
Americans, and particularly those in lower-income groups, are deriving clear economic benefits from cell phoneseven though low-income groups are far less likely to own a cell phone.
127
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
128
Poverty not linked to cell phones

Poverty Not Linked to Cell Phone Distribution
Asheeta Bhavnani, Researcher @ World Bank, 8 [June 15, ICT Policy Division, The Rural of Mobile Phones in Sustainable Rural Poverty Reduction, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/11/000334955_ 20080711061638/Rendered/INDEX/446780WP0Box321bile1Phones01PUBLIC1.txt] More analysis of the developing world indicates that a low GDP per capita is not necessarily an indication of mobile penetration. In Africa, 8 of the 18 countries analyzed have achieved over 70% population coverage, despite per capita incomes of less than $1,000 (see Figure 8). The main drivers are: (a) small geographical area; (b) good market conditions; (c) conducive policy environment; and (d) high population density. In Asia, many countries with low per capita incomes have over 90% population coverage (see Figure 9). In Latin America, 8 of the 18 countries analyzed have achieved over 90% population coverage, despite low per capita incomes (see Figure 10).
128
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
129
***AT: PROTECTIONISM***
129
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
130
AT: PovertyProtectionism (labor unions)

Labor union memberships dont rise with the prospect of higher wages Harper, staff of Foundation for Economic Education, 56
(F.A. Harper, staff of Foundation for Economic Education, March 1956, <http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-wages-rise1-labor-unions/>) The belief that unions cause wages to rise seems to be borne out by simple observation: In repeated instances it is observed that a labor union demands a rise in wages for its members. An argument ensues between the union and management; there may even be a strike. Sooner or later a wage rise is grantedif not for the full amount requested, at least for a major part of it. Other firms then have to meet this new rate or lose workers. So it appears, ipso facto, that wages in general are raised by union activity. Such a close-up observation, however, may lead
one to see things that are not so, as the proverbial fly on the chariot wheel believed that it propelled the vehicle. One must stand off a bit from the publicized union activities if he is to gain a true perspective on whether they
cause average wage rates to rise. One needs, for this purpose, a telescopic view by which to compare the long-time trends of wage rates with changes in union membership. On the accompanying chart, hourly wage rates in the United States are shown by the upper line. Wages will now buy nearly five times what they would a hundred years ago. The chart is constructed so that a constant rate of change in real wages would appear as a sloping straight line. Progress in an advancing economy seems to work that way, so that wages tend to rise in the manner of compound interest. Wage trends in the United States over the past century have fallen into three distinct periods: a yearly increase of 1.27 per cent for the period 18551895, a yearly increase of 0.55 per cent for 18961916, and a yearly increase of 2.47 per cent for 1917-1955. The reason for these changes in trend is a large question, which will be considered here only as it relates to union membership. The lower line on the chart shows union membership in per cent of all gainful workers in the United States. Here too are three distinct levels: A negligible union membership prior to 1900, then a rise at the turn of the century to a level of about 6 to 9 per cent which prevailed from 1903 to 1936, and then a sharp rise to a little over one-fourth of all workers as members of unions for the past ten years. So the trend in wage rates and in the proportion of workers who are union members have each had three distinctive periods during the past century. But if we compare the two lines carefully, no noticeable relationship between the two is to be found. Neither wage rates nor union membership could be predicted from the other, with any accuracy whatsoever. Try it. After covering the lower line, try to draw one to represent union membership based only on this evidence about wage trends, and vice versa. By comparing your estimate with the facts, Im sure you will agree that changes in wage rates are quite unrelated to changes in union membership. 1. Assumption: If unions were presumed to be the cause of rising wages, one would expect wages to have been at their lowest pointand to have remained at about the same low pointfrom 1855 to about 1900, when union membership was negligible. Fact: Wages rose appreciably over the period. They doubled within a mans working lifetime. 2. Assumption: Whatever the cause of the rising wage rates in the earlier period when union membership was negligible, one would expect it to have continued. But he would, in addition, expect the rise to be accelerated with the rise in union membership about the turn of the century. Fact: The rate of rise in wage rates from 1896 to 1916 was less than half that of the previous fifty years . 3. Assumption: One would expect the sharpest rise in wage rates to come when union membership was having its most rapid in-creasefrom 1936 to 1945and then to have leveled off when union membership stopped rising. Fact: The rate of increase in wage rates which began at the close of World War I continued with amazing consistency for the entire period from 1917 to 1955. From this evidence one must conclude, I believe, that wage rates show no clear response whatever to changes in union membership. If one says that the two lines are related but there is a lag in time of some 15 to 20 years, the evidence would be that rising wage rates cause union membership to rise, not vice versa. In any event it is the opposite of the theory that unions cause wage rates to rise. Consequences do not happen before their causes. And so this popular illusion that rising wages are due to the growth of labor unions must be discarded if there is to be any room for attention to other possible causes. As a preview to the answer as to what makes wages rise, I will merely say here that wages can be paid only out of what is produced. Something other than your joining a union is what increases your hourly economic outputnow five times that of your great-grandfathers a century ago.
130
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
131
***CHILD LABOR***
131
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
132
Poverty goodChild Labor

Excessive commodities are made by children Bahree, staffwriter for LinkedIn, 08
(Megha Bahree, staffwriter for LinkedIn, 2/25/2008, <http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0225/072.html>) Child labor is as old as the earliest settlements in the Indus Valley thousands of years ago. It is, for that matter, not unknown in the U.S. As recently as 2001 Nebraska's legislature was debating whether to outlaw the use of 12- and 13-yearolds in seed corn fields, where youngsters of this age accounted for 25% or more of detasseling labor. (This job is like Jyothi's, except that in hybrid seed corn production the game is to prevent self-pollination.) The difference is that the teenagers in the Midwest get $7 an hour so they can spend it at the mall. Their Indian counterparts are getting 20 cents an hour to buy food. Every time you buy an imported handmade carpet, an
embroidered pair of jeans, a beaded purse, a decorated box or a soccer ball there's a good chance you're acquiring something fashioned by a child. Such goods are available in places like GapKids, Macy's (nyse: M news - people ), ABC Carpet & Home, Ikea, Lowe's (nyse: LOW - news - people ) and Home Depot (nyse: HD - news people ). These retailers say they are aware of child-labor problems, have strict policies against selling products made by underage kids and abide by the laws of the countries from which they import. But there are many links in a supply chain, and even a well-intentioned importer can't police them all. "There are many, many household items that are produced with forced labor and not just child labor," says Bama Athreya, executive director of the International Labor Rights Forum in Washington, D.C. It's a fact of a global economy, and will continue to be, as long as Americans (and Europeans) demand cheap goods--and incomes in emerging economies remain low. If a child is enslaved, it's because his parents are desperately poor.
More purchases drive child labor Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, 02
(Eric V. Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, Director of the Child Labor Network at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Research Fellow at IZA, and an associate editor at Economic Development and Cultural Change. Edmonds received his Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University and a M.A. and B.A. in Economics from the University of Chicago, 2/24/2002, Globalization and the Economics of Child Labor, <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eedmonds/nzzessay.pdf> p. 29) First, globalization may increase the employment and earnings opportunities available to poor households in developing countries. Changes in local labor markets from globalization may increase or decrease child labor. Second, globalization increases the influence of rich countries in the domestic policies of the developing world. Globalization can enhance employment and earnings in developing countries because of inflows of foreign investment or increases in the value of a developing countrys export products. When a country opens to international markets, foreign investment often (but not always) enters the country. This leads to increases in the demand for local labor and hence higher wages. In addition, many of today's developing countries have comparative advantage in agriculture, and integration into international markets may increase the price of the export product to international levels. Thus, trade liberalization may increase employment and wages in these agricultural export sectors. These changes in developing country labor markets stemming from globalization could increase child labor. Increased earning opportunities may increase the demand for child labor and the wages paid to children. Indirectly, increased earnings opportunities to parents may change the types of work performed by parents. Children may be forced to take over some of the activities usually performed by adults within their household.
132
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
133
Poverty goodChild Labor

More profit means more child laborrice proves Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, 02
(Eric V. Edmonds, associate prof econ at Dartmouth, Director of the Child Labor Network at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Research Fellow at IZA, and an associate editor at Economic Development and Cultural Change. Edmonds received his Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University and a M.A. and B.A. in Economics from the University of Chicago, 2/24/2002, Globalization and the Economics of Child Labor, <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eedmonds/nzzessay.pdf> p. 29) A recent study of child labor in Vietnam evaluates how trade policy might affect child labor. Out of a concern for domestic food security, Vietnam restricted its exports of rice starting in 1989. These quotas suppressed the domestic price of rice. Between 1993 and 1997, Vietnam gradually relaxed this export quota so that by 1998, Vietnam was completely exposed to the international price of rice. During this period of liberalization, the price of rice increased by 30% relative to the rise in the consumer price index. Rice is an important commodity in Vietnam. It is the primary staple in the Vietnamese diet, the largest single component of household expenditure, and 70% of households produce rice. Moreover, in 1993, before the liberalization of rice prices in Vietnam, 26% of children between 6 and 15 worked in rice production in Vietnam, and rice production was far and away the largest employer of adults. Thus, rice price increases should affect both children and adults. The study finds that rice price increases can account for 45% of the overall decline in child labor that Vietnam experienced in the 1990s. This corresponds to approximately 1 million fewer working children in Vietnam. The study identifies several ways in which rice price increases affect child labor.
Both child and adult wages rise with increases in rice prices. Higher child wages encourage children to work, but the observed rise in adult wages appears to reduce child labor more than higher child wages increase child labor.
The impact on child labor of these wage increases is tiny compared to the decline in child labor attributable to the additional income captured by households owning land for rice production.
133
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
134
ImpactsDehumanization
Child labor is dehumanization Holland, part of the International Rescue Committee, 09
(Emily Holland, part of the International Rescue Committee, 3/5/2009, Fighting Child Labor and Trafficking in Liberia, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/fighting-child-labor-traf_n_172305.html>) Poverty is a major (but not the only) reason child labor and trafficking is rampant in Liberia. Traditional beliefs about child labor also play a role. In rural villages, working hard, and becoming strong are seen as positive goals for young boys and girls. Part of the IRC's strategy is to convince parents to keep and send their children to school--but that requires a shift in attitude: that children have rights, that trafficking and child labor are dehumanizing , and that the money a child makes is not worth the toll on his or her body, mind and spirit.
134
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
135
***TEST SUBJECTS/PHARMACEUTICALS***
135
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
136
Poverty goodTest subjects

Poverty causes pools of potential test subjects Dani Veracity, journalist for Natural News, 06
(Dani Veracity, journalist for Natural News, 3/7/06, <http://www.naturalnews.com/019193.html>) During the Holocaust, the Nazis confined the marginalized sectors of society -- Jews (including children), gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and the mentally retarded -- into camps that became human guinea pig-filled laboratories for IG Farben's experimental drug studies. Today, marginalized populations still make up a large portion of experimental drug test subjects; however, socioeconomic factors, rather than concentration camp authorities, make them more likely to sell their bodies to Big Pharma. It's no accident that SFBC, the largest experimental drug testing center in North America, is located in Miami. According to the St. Petersburg Times, Miami-Dade County "is the only county in the country where more than half the residents are foreignborn." After immigrants come to Miami from countries like Cuba, Colombia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Argentina and Mexico, they need money, yet experience the employment limitations that little or no fluency in English, little education, unfamiliarity, prejudice and, in some cases, lack of a work permit brings. With few other options available, these immigrants find one of the few legal jobs that doesn't require any amount of English proficiency or education and may even accept forged social security cards: Professional guinea pig. Many immigrants participate in multiple, simultaneous drug studies. Combining these experimental drugs is a recipe for disaster "because researchers don't know how the different chemicals interact or what side effects the mix may have on a person," according to the Bloomberg article "Miami Test Center Lures Poor Immigrants as Human Guinea Pigs". However, given the fact that some studies only pay $25 per day, what else are the truly marginalized subjects supposed to do? " It's not the job I would choose, but financial circumstances require you to do it sometimes,'' Venezuelan immigrant Oscar Cabanerio told
Bloomberg.
136
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
137
Poverty goodTest subjects

Poor people are willing test subjects Katie Garey, SSU researcher, 98
Katie Garey, SSU researcher, 1998, American Drug Industry Uses the Poor as Human Guinea Pigs <http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-american-drug-industry-uses-the-poor-as-human-guinea-pigs/> Over 40,000 human guinea pigs participate in drug testing experiments run by huge pharmaceutical companies in the United States annually. Most of these people are poor and down-and-outers, who need the money drug testing provides. Ever since the mid-1970s, when the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) issued stricter rules on informed consent, high compensation has been necessary to attract research subjects for pharmaceutical tests. This generally means that the lowest income people in the U.S. are the ones who participate , since few people with comfortable financial circumstances volunteer to be guinea pigs for the drug companies . The nations drug testing processes seem to be based on the exploitation of Americas lowest classes . Last fall, The Wall Street journal published an article that reported Eli Lilly, maker of Prozac, uses homeless people to test drugs for FDA approval. The Eli Lilly program, which pays $85 per day, is reportedly famous through soup kitchens, prisons, and shelters from coast-to-coast. A nurse at the Lilly clinic in Indianapolis told the Journal that the majority of participants in the Phase I testing programs are alcoholics, although heavy drinkers and drug users are supposed to be excluded from experimental programs because the presence of alcohol or other drugs in the body compromises test results. Participation
in drug and medical studies is a serious gamble. No one knows the long-term side effects of the drugs volunteers take. Animal drug testing, however, the mechanism that is supposed to minimize the danger to volunteers of
drugs that have never been tested on humans, is unreliable. For example, in the early 1990s, the FDA approved fialuridine for healthy human volunteers after it proved non-toxic to dogs. Dogs, however, have an enzyme that neutralizes the drug, which humans apparently do not. Five Phase II patients died after taking fialuridine. Even Princeton Universitys highly rated program raises questions about the ethics of drug testing. The Princeton site makes participation especially alluring to the poor. The unit runs a courtesy van for easy access to the facility. There is a bank within walking distance, and the unit gives volunteers a letter to guarantee they wont have problems cashing their checks. Screening participants enjoy a free, all-you-can-eat lunch. Once admitted to the study, they get free meals, shelter, cable TV, and a video library. The nations big drug companies have never been known for high-minded ethical standards. Before 1900, orphans and street urchins were used as control groups in drug experiments. Testing remained informal in the early part of the twentieth century, as companies issued experimental drugs to doctors to try out on sick patients. But after the thalidomide scare of 1962, Congress passed laws to standardize drug testing procedures. Animal tests were then required for all new drugs, followed by experiments on healthy human subjects, who were most often prisoners.
137
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
138
Test subjects help pharmaceuticals

More test subjects improve medicine Dute et. al, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Law, Tort and insurance Law, 04
Jos Dute, Michael G. Faure, Helmut Koziol, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Law, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, 2004, Liability for and Insurability of Biomdical Research with Human Subjects in a Comparative Perspective p. 229) In order to improve medicine, it will be necessary to engage test subjects in research. This may always involve the risk for these test subjects to be exposed to injuries. This is problematic all the more so now that biomedical research is not, at least not merely and not in the first place, in the interest of the test subject. It always involves other interests as well. namely the public interest of progress of medicine or medical science, and in addition, the interests of the researcher, the institution for scientific research and the (pharmaceutical) industry. On account of structural third-party presence at biomedical research involving human subjects, protection of the test subject against (possible) injury deserves special legal attention. The potential of the injury-causing nature of biomedical research can be legally mitigated in two ways. On the one hand, by limiting the risks involved with research to a minimum on the other hand by seeing to it that if an injury does indeed manifest itself with the test subject, this is to be compensated as adequately as possible. The statutory regulation of Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands intends to offer adequate protection to the test subject in both ways. At the centre of the Dutch legal test subject protection system is the Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects Act, applicable to all biomedical research. The statutory framework is described in paragraph 1.3. The act does not contain any specific liability regime (i.e. liability rules based on fault are applicable), but does contain an obligation for the sponsor of the research to take out insurance. Liability and insurance within the framework of biomedical research involving human subjects will be extensively dealt with in Parts II and III. Critical observations will be added there and the insurance regulation practice will be the subject of extensive discussion as well. A few more views of the insurance regulation in the light of the objections observed follow in Part N First, however, the matter of intemational legislation affecting legal protection of the test subject will be briefly discussed (paragraph 1.2).
138
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
139
ImpactsHeg
Maintaining Big Pharma key to econ Fishman, staffwriter for the NYT, 05
(Ted C. Fishman, staffwriter for the New York Times, Jan 9 2005 LN, < http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/magazine/09COUNTERFEIT.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1>) The threat to American interests is not hard to identify. According to the Milken Institute, Big Pharma employs 400,000 Americans directly, creates another 2.7 million jobs and contributes $172 billion to the U.S. economy. It is one of the most important engines of the knowledge economy; in 2003 the pharmaceutical industry invested $33.2 billion in drug research. That does not include the nearly $30 billion spent on life sciences by the publicly financed National Institutes of Health, which pays for research that leads to commercial drugs. Weaken the drug industry and you weaken one pillar of the U.S. economy.
Pharma innovation key to comeptitiveness Marketwatch, 08

Marketwatch, 12-15-08, Online, <http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10082406> It has become increasingly clear that continued leadership in medical innovation has a direct correlation to job growth and U.S. competitiveness, as well as the health of all Americans, said Former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who moderated the discussion. This region is home to some of the countrys most innovative universities and biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies who together employ hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians making it an ideal place to discuss how we can ensure continued health and economic security through medical innovation.
Competitiveness is key to heg Martino, Senior Fellow-Foreign Policy Research Institute, 7

(Rocco Martino, Senior Fellow-Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2007, A Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership, Orbis, Volume 51, Issue 2) Much of the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the dilemma posed by the Iraq War and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. These problems are, of course, both immediate and important. However, America also faces other challenges to its physical security and economic prosperity, and these are more longterm and probably more profound. There is, first, the threat posed by our declining competitiveness in the global economy, a threat most obviously represented by such rising economic powers as China and India.1
There is, second, the threat posed by our increasing dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Moreover, these two threats are increasingly connected, as China and India themselves are greatly increasing their demand for Middle East oil.2 The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail
over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence. There is therefore an urgent need for America to resume its historic emphasis on innovation. The United States needs a national strategy focused upon developing new technologies and creating new industries. Every
successful strategy must define an objective or mission, determine a solution, and assemble the means of execution. In this case, the objective is economic superiority; the solution is new industries which build upon the contemporary revolution in information technology; and the means of execution will have to include a partnership of industry, government, and people.3
139
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
140
ImpactsAIDS
Big pharmaceuticals key to solve AIDSinvestment EFPIA, 2K (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Association, 2K, <http://www.efpia.org/2_indust/pharmainnovation.pdf>) Several responsible AIDS activists have become concerned that the attacks against the industry including the intellectual property foundation of its drug development threaten to discourage new investments, as survey data suggest that after a substantial rise through most of the past decade in the number of anti-retroviral drug compounds in development for the potential treatment and possible cure of HIV/AIDS, there has been a steady decline in the number over the past three years corresponding to the period of growing attack on IP rights linked to AIDS medicines. Millions die of disease every year OECD Observer, 03
(OECD Observer, 4/25/03 http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/996) However, so far at least, SARS is still an emerging disease with relatively modest impact on human life . And to the extent that health authorities worldwide mostly have responded quickly to the challenges thrown at them thanks in no small amount to WHOs surveillance networks we can take heart in the fact that our global defense systems can work.But this is by no means so for all emerging infectious diseases . Worldwide, infectious diseases remain the leading cause of mortality, with 17 million deaths each year. Since the 1970s at least 30 new infectious diseases have emerged for which no effective treatment exists. And in this modern world, diseases can spread further and faster than ever before, threatening our lives, societies, and economies.
140
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
141
Impacts- AIDS
AIDS causes extinction Mathiu, Africa News writer, 2K
Mutuma Mathiu, Africa News, July 15, 2000 Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the graves it fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration, the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines - killed a full 40 million Europeans, a quarter of the population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. With Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim . The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification . It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is
difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy.
141
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
142
***FOSSIL FUELS***
142
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
143
Wealth Fossil Fuels

Those with higher incomes have higher fossil fuel consumption Ravilious, contributing editor, 2009
(Kate Ravilious is a contributing editor to environmentalresearchweb. Apr 1, http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/38530) Now a new study reveals the increase in appetite for fossil fuels has not been spread evenly across
2009
the population. High-income households have ramped up their consumption levels far faster than low income ones. Meanwhile a rapidly expanding leisure and services industry has also guzzled a large share.
Eleni Papathanasopoulou and Tim Jackson of the Research group on Lifestyles, Values and Environment (RESOLVE) at the University of Surrey, UK, found that the gap between the rich and poor has been increasing over time . The highest earners increased their fossil-fuel consumption by 50% between 1968 and 2000, while the lowest earners increased their consumption by only 20% over the same time period. But household income doesnt tell the entire story. When Papathanasopoulou and Jackson analysed the data in more detail it became clear that spending habits have changed dramatically too. The scientists separated out the data into direct purchases of fuel (gas piped into the home, petrol pumped into the car and electricity flowing down the wires into our houses) and indirect purchases of fuel (the resources required to produce and maintain all other goods and services that we buy). Indirect fossil-fuel resources have seen a surge in demand, particularly by those on higher incomes . This highlights the increased volume in the purchase of goods and services demanded by households, Papathanasopoulou told environmentalresearchweb. Exotic holidays, gym memberships and eating out are all more common these days, meanwhile make-do-and-mend has gone out of fashion and most of us buy new goods instead.
143
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
144
Wealth Fossil Fuels

Higher income levels ensure higher fossil fuel use expenditures on travel and public transit Papathanasopoulou and Jackson, Centre for Environmental Strategy, 2008
(Eleni Papathanasopoulou and Tim Jackson of the Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7TH, United Kingdom 24 August 2008 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4TS80VK1&_user=4257664&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion =0&_userid=4257664&md5=a1829d654560fa698a979f681e140767) The higher rate of increase in fossil resources attributable to the top quintile's expenditure on travel
compared to the lower quintiles has meant an increase in the inequality of distribution amongst these two quintiles. For instance, the difference in fossil resources attributed to the highest quintile compared to the lowest quintile was 1.46Mtoe in 1968, but this increased to 2.86 in 2000. The indirect fossil resource inequality associated with travel increased by 40% over the period. Increases in embodied fossil resource attributed to high income groups' expenditure for travel are predominately due to the increase in air travel and high usage of rail travel in upper income quintiles.
In 1978, there were approximately 20million UK air passengers, while in 1998 this increased to approximately 60million passengers (CAA, 1998). The CAA (1998)survey notes that 33% of total UK air passengers in 1998 were from the high income groups, while only 10% were from low income groups. Additionally, the Department for Transport (2003a) notes that the higher the income of people the more rail trips made. In 1999/2001, [t]hose in the highest income quintile made an average of 49 trips a year, more than twice the number of those in the second highest income quintile, and more than 5 times as many as those in the lowest two quintiles. (DfT, 2003a, pp. 2). The only counter-trend is discernible in relation to bus use. In 1999/2001, for example, buses were more frequently used by people in the lowest quintiles who made 98 bus trips a year, whereas the highest quintile only made 29 trips a year (DfT, 2003b, pp. 1).
144
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
145
Fossil Fuel Impact - Terrorism

Fossil fuel dependence props up terrorist activities Sandalow, scholar at the Brookings Institution, January 22 2007
(David Sandalow is Energy and Environment Scholar at The Brookings Institution. Ending Oil Dependence January 22 2007 http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdf) The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will last for generations. Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a
central role in the struggle. Oil dependence lies behind the jihadist threat not as the only cause, but as an important one. For example, according to Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser at the time of the first Gulf War, what gave enormous urgency to [Saddams invasion of Kuwait] was the issue of oil .5 After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment . Osama bin
Ladens first fatwa, in 1996, was titled Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment tool for jihadists. That resentment grows not just from the war in Iraq, but from the U.S. relationship with the House of Saud, the presence of U.S. forces throughout the region and more. Yet the United States faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half the worlds proven oil reserves, the worlds cheapest oil and the worlds only spare production capacity, the Persian Gulf will remain the indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To protect oil flows, the U.S. policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and
exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel the jihadist movement. Compounding this problem, the huge money flows into the region from oil purchases help finance terrorist networks. Saudi money provides critical support for madrassas with virulent anti-American views. Still worse,
diplomatic efforts to enlist Saudi government help in choking off such funding, or even to investigate terrorist attacks, are hampered by the priority we attach to preserving Saudi cooperation in managing world oil markets. This points to a broader problem -- oil dependence reduces the leverage of the world community in responding to threats from oil-exporting nations. Today, the most prominent threat comes from Iran, whose nuclear ambitions could further destabilize the Persian Gulf and put terrifying new weapons into the hands of terrorists. Yet efforts to respond to this threat with multilateral sanctions have foundered on fears that Iran would retaliate by withholding oil from world markets. Experts predict this would drive prices above $100 per barrel a risk many governments are unwilling to accept. In short, three decades after the first oil shocks -- and a quarter-century after the humiliating capture of U.S. diplomats in Tehran we remain hostage to our continuing dependence on oil.
145
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
146
Fossil Fuel Impact - Terrorism

And terrorism results in extinction Sid-Ahmed 2004
(Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Managing http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) Editor for Al-Ahali, 2004, Extinction! Issue no.705,
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a
point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police
measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
146
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
147
Fossil Fuel Impact - Democracy

Fossil fuel consumption corrodes democracy promotion abroad Sandalow, scholar at the Brookings Institution, January 22 2007
(David Sandalow is Energy and Environment Scholar at The Brookings Institution. Ending Oil Dependence January 22 2007 http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdf) Oil wealth also corrodes democratic institutions. This dynamic is not inevitable, but it is widespread. A growing body of scholarly work explores this topic, concluding that oil wealth is strongly associated with corruption and
authoritarian rule.7 A few examples underscore this trend. Bahrain, the Persian Gulf country with the smallest oil reserves, was also the first to hold free elections.8 As oil prices climbed in recent years, both Vladmir Putin and Hugo Chavez moved away from democratic institutions and toward more authoritarian rule . In Nigeria, oil abundance contributes to widespread corruption.
Democracy is critical to prevent extinction Diamond, Hoover Institution, 1995

(Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html //) Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another . They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the
destruction of their environments.
147
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
148
Fossil Fuel Impact - Economy

Fossil fuel dependence leads to recessions and other economic impacts Sandalow, scholar at the Brookings Institution, January 22 2007
(David Sandalow is Energy and Environment Scholar at The Brookings Institution. Ending Oil Dependence January 22 2007 http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdf) Oil dependence exposes the United States economy to the volatility of world oil markets . Because oil price increases can occur suddenly, consumers and businesses may be unable to adjust behavior and forced to incur higher expenses when prices rise. The impacts on low-income families and oil-intensive
businesses may be especially severe.14 The oil price spikes of the 1970s have often been blamed for the recessions that followed.15 However, this
view has been challenged by Ben Bernanke and others who argue that restrictive monetary played a larger role in those downturns.16 Significantly, the oil price increases of 2005-2006 did not produce a recession. Possible reasons include sound management of monetary policy and a lower ratio of oil use to GDP than during prior price spikes. Nevertheless, the climb in oil prices during the past few years imposed considerable costs . In 2006, U.S. payments abroad for oil were more than $250 billion.17 Between summer 2003 and summer 2006, world oil prices rose from roughly $25 per barrel to more than $78 per barrel. For several African countries, increased oil costs during this period substantially exceeded amounts saved through debt relief. For the United States, each $10/barrel increase results in roughly $50 billion of additional foreign payments annually (approximately 0.4% of GDP).18
Oil and fossil fuel dependence leads to supply shocks hurting the US economy Scire, professor of political science, February 10 2008
(Dr. John Scire is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at UNR, where he has taught an energy policy course for the last 10 years. Sunday, February 10, 2008 http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244)
Insecure Oil currently comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and several other smaller Middle Eastern exporters. According to the U.S. Energy Department, we import 1.4 million of barrels of oil per day from Saudi
Arabia along with 800,000 barrels from other Persian Gulf states, 1.4 million barrels from Venezuela and 1.1 million barrels from Nigeria. At $100 per barrel, the U.S. will be sending $51 billion a year to the Saudis alone in 2008. Oil dependency from unstable or hostile countries has huge economic , military, national security, and political implications for our country. The economic costs include net capital outflows, loss of competitiveness in world markets and the costs of supply and demand disruptions. In 2007, estimated net capital outflows from the U.S. to oil exporters exceeded $150 billion. The money used to purchase oil today is not repatriated in purchases of U.S. goods and services by oil exporting states as it was in the 1970s. As a result, the American economy loses $150 billion every year and that money only increases other countries' competitiveness. Supply disruptions are another economic cost of dependency. In a 2003 report, the National Defense Council Foundation (NDCF) estimated total costs to the American economy from supply disruptions in 1973, 1979, and 1990 at $2.3 to $2.5 trillion.
148
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
149
***WASTE***
149
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
150
Wealth Waste
Rich areas generate more waste than poorer areas
Barun Mitra, director of Liberty Institute, March 2000 (Barun Mitra, director of Liberty Institute, a research organization that promotes free-market economics, PERC Report Poverty, Wealth, and Waste March 2000 http://www.perc.org/pdf/mar00.pdf)
Poor societies can afford little waste in the traditional sense. Poverty ensures that every bit of a resource is reused, recycled, or otherwise utilized. In India, an enormous army of rag-pickers continuously
supplies millions of trash merchants all over the country. They pick up virtually everything that might have a potential value. The rag-pickers, particularly in urban centers, have an unmatched capacity to extract and sort every bit of material that can be reused, recycled, or have other potential uses. This interest in resource utilization pervades almost all strata of society. Families in India willingly wait for weeks in the hope of getting a higher price for their old newspapers. Trash dealers frequent homes on a regular basis to buy newspapers, plastic and glass bottles, discarded furniture, or household gadgets. These are then meticulously sorted and sold for reuse, repair, recycling, resource recovery, and any number of other uses. The pattern of waste utilization changes from poor rural areas to small towns to big cities. In the smaller and poorer areas, the volume of actual waste is very small, because whatever material can have some possible utility is reused or repaired. Consequently, dealing with waste as an economic activity is minimal. As one moves into towns, waste acquires a more economically vibrant characteristic. Household consumption levels are higher, and so is the quantity of waste. Consequently, there are more trash dealers to exploit the economic potential of the larger volume of waste. There are two reasons why recycling in poorer countries like India is so thorough. First, the low value of labor justifies the long hours spent extracting material. For rag-pickers, there are few other ways to earn money. Second, because the country is poor, many products made from virgin raw materials are luxury goods, simply too expensive for most people. Thus, there is a ready market for reused and recycled goods. The painstaking efforts to recycle materials do not mean that a poor country like India is pollution free. Indeed, the low quantity of waste generated in an economy with technological backwardness and little capital keeps the waste industry from graduating above small-scale local initiatives. And higher pollution occurs because there isnt the technology to capture highly dispersed waste such as sulfur dioxide from smokestacks or heavy metals that flow into wastewater. In contrast to the careful reuse and recycling of waste in poor countries, per capita generation of waste is much higher in wealthy countries (although pollution is lower). This obvious difference is often used to extol the virtues of lower consumption in poor countries and the evils of consumerist lifestyles in the latter. But the explanation is more complex. Rich societies generate more wastes because their citizens can afford to do without the leftovers, whether in the form of food, packaging, worn-out clothes, or energy. Another way of looking at it is that the value of the waste, even while it is substantial in terms of weight or volume, is so small in comparison to individuals disposable income that most people find the value of waste (in economic terms, the marginal utility of waste) to be quite low. Many cheap substitutes are of better quality. Many items that are reused in India are thrown away in the United States because they just arent
worth very much to people who can afford new products.
150
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
151
Technology Waste Impact - Environment

Waste from technology harms the environment
Robert MacMillan Staff Writer May 6, 2005 (Robert MacMillan, staff writer for the Washington Post, Friday, May 6 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050600466_pf.html) Cast in the mold of unintended consequences and shot through with a dose of civil service logic, the law, Schoenberger says, includes a list of 212 state-approved "e-waste" collectors in California, each with a different handling policy: "Some will take it off your hands for free, others will charge you $20 a tube. One local collector charges to take the monitor, but waives that fee if you throw in the rest of the old computer's system. Another charges piece by piece to collect the central processing unit, keyboards and mouse, but takes the monitor for free. To figure what's best for you, you need to navigate a state agency Web site and locate a list of approved collectors in your county, then call them, one by one, for details. Convenient free pickup of e-waste at the curbside is not in the cards. You'll need to haul it to a warehouse or a collection center." Even more mystifying is the way the law is supposed to work. Follow the link above and go to the "System-mandated" subheadline. I'll forgive you if you wonder whether the brains behind this operation are abusing the state's medical marijuana law. Of course, regulations like this are easy to slam because they make doing the right thing more difficult than it should be. Nevertheless, it really is about doing just that -- the right thing -- and throughout America people are figuring out other ways to deal with the problem. The Merc story showed up atop of a month's worth of reporting on how technology waste harms the environment. Much of that coverage was dedicated to Earth Day v35.0, which fell on April 22. The Associated Press provided the high-level story: "Tons of computers, monitors, television sets, and other
electronic gizmos that contain hazardous chemicals, or 'e-waste,' may be poisoning people and ground water. Activists say the nation's biggest environmental problem may be the smallest devices ... and they've
launched campaigns to increase awareness about recycling cell phones, music players, hand-held gaming consoles, and other electronics." Cell phones, by the way, are the worst offenders. The AP in another story zeroed in on Vermont, where the Green Mountain State's residents want the legislature to make their mountains just a little bit greener. The story focused on an April 26 recycling fair -- a better term to describe the event doesn't come to mind -- where residents around Montpelier "lugged thousands of pounds of obsolete computers, burned-out televisions, broken cell phones, ancient IBM Selectric typewriters to a parking lot behind a state office building Tuesday, where three groups offered free recycling of the e-junk." Even this tiny state estimates that it generated 4,500 tons of electronic waste in 2000. Here are some of the effects on the air we breathe and the water we drink, according to the article: "TV and computer monitor screens are laced with lead. Circuit boards are toxic-rich with heavy metals including mercury, lead and cadmium. Complex hazardous chemicals such as fire retardants coat interior parts. Some of those chemicals escape into the atmosphere when trash is burned, or could leach over time into groundwater if trash is buried. Even improper recycling can harm the workers who dismantle equipment improperly, often in developing countries where much e-waste ends up."
151
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
152
Technology Waste Impact - Pollution

Electronic waste contributes to food contamination and pollution Green Living, an online ecology and environmental resource, 2009
(Green Living Answers, an online ecology and environmental resource, 2009 http://www.greenlivinganswers.com/archives/203) Consumer electronics, like mobile phones, laptops, MP3 players and televisions keep people in touch with their work world, as well as for entertainment. What most do not think about when making an electronics purchase is what they will do with the item once it breaks or becomes obsolete. Each year in the United States alone, some three million tons of commodity and electronic waste, or e-waste as it is known, is thrown away. Where does that waste end up and how does it effect our environment? Because of the difficulty and cost of recycling electronics, as well as spotty enforcement of legislation regarding e-waste exports, vast amounts of used electronics have been sent to countries such as China, Kenya and India. Lower environmental standards and working conditions make processing e-waste more profitable yet dangerously hazardous in those countries. Being mindful of e-waste disposal is a big concern. There are facilities out there that specifically deal with this hazardous material correctly. When electronics are handled and sorted properly, e-waste is a valuable source of secondary raw materials. However, they are a major contributor of toxins and carcinogens when clumsily treated. Fast paced technology changes, low initial cost and actual planned obsolescence have given way to a growing problem around the globe. Uncontrolled
burning, disassembly without safety measures in place, and haphazard disposal practices are causing environmental and health problems. Waste from consumer electronics contains PCBs, cadmium, mercury and lead. Those substances are highly toxic and carcinogenic and when carelessly handled, they can contaminate our food and water supply and enter into the food chain. Burning of these products causes toxic fumes to be emitted. This furthers the depletion of the ozone layer, as well as creating the potential of inhalation by humans and animals. PCBs have been shown to cause cancer, while cadmium, lead and mercury affect the central nervous system, which can cause cell damage and renal failure.
152
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
153
Technology Waste Impact - Pollution

Pollutants are responsible for 40% of all deaths every year
Andrea Thompson, staff writer, 10 September 2007 (Andrea Thompson, LiveScience, a science news source, Staff Writer 10 September 2007 http://www.livescience.com/environment/070910_pollution_deaths.html) Water, air and soil pollution, along with other environmental factors, contribute to 40 percent of deaths worldwide each year, a new study concludes. In a review of research into the effects of environmental pollutants and other sources of environmental degradation, Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel estimates that 62 million deaths per year (40 percent of all that
occur) can be attributed to environmental factors, particularly organic and chemical pollutants that accumulate in the air we breathe and the water we drink.
Though scientists and organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization have begun keeping tabs on the role environmental pollution plays and were aware of the enormous impact that some pollutants have, "we were surprised with the number," Pimentel said. This "suggests the importance of the environment as it's related to our deaths," he told LiveScience. With an estimated 1.1 billion people in the world lacking access to clean water (according to WHO estimates), it is little wonder that waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases in the world. "Water is one of the major concerns, without any question," Pimentel said, because everyone must use it for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing. Water contaminated with untreated sewage and fecal matter can facilitate the transmission of diarrheal diseases such as cholera (bacteria that live in feces), intestinal infections (which can compound health issues by causing malnutrition) and other diseasesall of which kill millions every year, especially children. A 2004 study by the Population Resource Center found that 2.2 million infants and children die each year from diarrhea, caused largely by contaminated water and food. And, according to their estimates, polluted water in Africa and India causes 1.4 million deaths each year as a result of diarrheal diseases such as cholera and dysentery. "Water sanitation and hygiene are, considered globally, one of the big, big causes of disease," said WHO scientist Annette Prss-stn. Continues Air pollution is another big killer . The WHO ranks it as the eighth most important risk in the burden of disease and
deems it responsible for 3 million deaths each year through diseases such as pneumonia, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer.
153
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
154
Technology Waste Impact Pollution

Polluted environments disproportionately kill children vulnerability Richard, WHO Press Release, May 2002
(Jenny Richard, Television Trust for the Environment, UNICEF and WHO Press Release, UN Report Released for Child Conference 9 May 2002, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/release36/en/index.html)
Every day 5,500 children die from diseases caused by consuming water and food polluted with bacteria, according to a new study released by three United Nations agencies. This alarming figure, from Children in the New Millennium: Environmental Impact on Health, shows that children the world over are the greatest victims of environmental degradation, despite the great strides made over the
past ten years in improving both childrens well-being and the environment. The diseases largely influenced by this degradation, most notably diarrhoea and acute respiratory infections, are two of the leading causes of child mortality. "We have made great strides over the last decade. Children are healthier today. There is more access to clean water. But these disturbing figures show we have barely started to address some of the main problems," said Carol Bellamy, the Executive Director of UNICEF. "Far too many children are dying from diseases that can be prevented through access to clean water and sanitation." The 140 page report, jointly produced by UNICEF, the UN Environment Programme and the World Health Organization (WHO), is being released as part of the May 8-10 UN General Assembly Special Session on Children. This landmark conference, attended by more than 60 heads of state or government and 170 national delegations, aims to place children back at the top of the world's agenda and foster more investment in essential social services for them. One of its main goals is to increase household access to hygienic sanitation facilities and affordable and safe drinking water. According to WHO, almost one-third of the global disease burden can be attributed to environmental risk factors. Over 40 per cent of this burden falls on children under five years of age, who account for only 10 per cent of the worlds population. A major contributing factor to these diseases is malnutrition, which affects around 150 million and undermines their immune systems. Malnutrition and diarrhoea form a vicious cycle. The organisms that cause diarrhoea harm the walls of a children's guts, which prevents them digesting and absorbing their food adequately, causing even greater malnutrition -- and vulnerability to disease. "People are most vulnerable in their youngest years. This means that children must be at the centre of our response to unhealthy environments." said WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland.
154
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
155
Food Waste Impact Climate Change

Food waste leads to environmental impacts such as global warming
Jonathan Bloom, staff writer for Culinate, November 19 2007 (Jonathan Bloom, staff writer for Culinate, an online food news source and resource, November 19 2007, http://www.culinate.com/articles/features/wasted_food) As a symbol of American abundance, Thanksgiving hints at just how much food there is to squander. And squander we do, from farm to fork. More than 40 percent of all food produced in America is not eaten, according to research by former University of Arizona anthropologist Timothy Jones. That amounts to more than 29 million tons of food waste each year, or enough to fill the Rose Bowl every three days. Nationwide, food scraps make up 17 percent of what we send to
landfills. This waste often goes undetected. I think that without a doubt, when people say that they dont waste food, they
believe it. Theres a huge disconnect, says William Rathje, a Stanford archaeologist who ran the University of Arizona Garbage Project for years. People dont pay attention to their food waste because it goes straight into the garbage or disposal. Its not like newspapers that stack up in the garage. We live in a culture of excess, and food is no exception. The average American wastes more than half a pound of food per day. Im no mathematical whiz, but that would be a whole Quarter Pounder at lunch and dinner. When you count whats put down the disposal, 25 percent of what enters our homes is not eaten, Rathje reports. And as we can all attest, restaurants massive portions fill their large plates, our stomachs, and then their dumpsters. Exceptions to this squandering like T.G.I. Fridays Right Portion, Right Price menu are few. Every day, Jones calculates, American restaurants throw away more than 6,000 tons of food. There are consequences to our national habit of sending food to landfills. American food waste has significant environmental, [and] economic, and cultural ramifications. Wasting food squanders the time, energy, and resources both money and oil used to produce that food. Increasingly, great amounts of fossil fuel are used to fertilize, apply pesticides to, harvest, and process food. Still more gas is spent transporting food from farm to processor, wholesaler to restaurant, store to households, and finally to the landfill. Thats why Michael Pollan writes in The Omnivores Dilemmathat it takes more than one calorie of fossil-fuel energy to yield one calorie of food. Food rotting in landfills contributes to global warming. Landfills are Americas primary source of methane emissions, and the second-largest component of landfills are organic materials. When food decomposes in a landfill, it releases methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Furthermore, wet food waste is the main threat to groundwater or stream pollution in the event of a liner leak or large storm.
155
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
156
Food Waste Impact Climate Change

Climate change causes disasters worldwide and kills 300,000 people every year CBS News May 29 2009
(CBS News Climate Change Kills 300,000 A Year Think Tank Led By Former U.N. Secretary General Also Says World Loses $125B Annually From Global Warming May 29 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/29/tech/main5048937.shtml) A think-tank led by former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan says that around 300,000 people die each year from disasters related to climate change. The Global Humanitarian Forum also estimates that global warming seriously affects 325 million people and causes $125 billion in economic losses each year. Annan says people in the world's poorest countries are most affected by changes in the weather and environment. The Forum report on climate change released Friday used existing data on weather-related disasters and population trends to draw its conclusions. Meanwhile, Africa's environment ministers called for more money and support from rich nations ahead of a landmark climate conference, saying the continent contributes little to global warming but suffers disproportionately from its effects The ministers, meeting in Nairobi, said they will ask for funding from rich nations at December's U.N. conference in Copenhagen of 190 countries. They did not give a figure, but the U.N. says Africa needs at least $1 billion a year to manage the effects of climate change such as sinking islands, changing farming techniques and even relocating people from areas affected by extreme weather. Buyelwa Sonjica, South Africa's water affairs and environment minister, said she wants "stronger leadership from the developed world ... I am not sure it is there yet." In recent years, Africa has begun to experience the effects of a swiftly warming planet, exacerbating an already existing litany of woes on the world's poorest continent. Malaria, which is prevalent in warm lowland areas of Africa and kills millions, has started to be recorded in what were the continent's cooler highland areas. Countries have reported more instances of extreme weather. Climate scientists are predicting that some African mountains will lose all their snow cover, and a staple crop like wheat may disappear in the 2080s. December is the target date for concluding a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement that aimed to reduce carbon dioxide and other global-warming emissions by industrial nations. The U.S. and China are the world's largest polluters, accounting for about half the world's carbon emissions. But neither country was part of the Kyoto accord, which called on 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by a total of 5 percent below 1990 levels. The United States refused to sign Kyoto, citing the costs to the economy and lack of participation by China, India and other fast-developing countries. But some of those countries have said rich countries are not aggressive enough in cutting their own emissions. U.S. emissions now are 16 percent above what they were two decades ago. Earlier this month, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the key to a new global climate change agreement will be a deal between the United States and China. Blair also said climate change negotiators must find a way to integrate the United States, which has fallen far behind on controlling greenhouse gas emissions, into an agreement with Europe and other wealthy countries that have been working to reduce pollution for years.
156
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
157
Food Waste Impact - Economy

Food waste takes a catastrophic toll on the US economy
Jonathan Bloom, staff writer for Culinate, November 19 2007 (Jonathan Bloom, staff writer for Culinate, an online http://www.culinate.com/articles/features/wasted_food) food news source and resource, November 19 2007,
Financially, wasted food costs America more than $100 billion annually, says the University of Arizonas Jones. (The USDAs most recent estimate on the cost of food waste $96 billion is 10 years old.) Closer to home, the average four-person household wastes about $600 of food each year.
If youre thinking Not in my house, consider whats in your kitchen trash and the back of your fridge, what you put down the disposal this week, and what youve recently declined to take home from restaurants. The food items we often waste stem from impulse purchases, recipes we intend to but never make, and our failed best intentions. People dont match purchasing with actual consumption , says Jones. Theyre buying things they dont eat because they see themselves as healthy and environmentally friendly. By the time the weekend comes around, you go to make that salad and its turned to mush.
157
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
158
***GLOBAL WARMING***
158
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
159
Poverty Good- Global warming

Worlds richest exacerbate warming and pollution Pearce, 2001 UK environment journalist of the year, 09
(Fred Pearce, 2001 UK environment journalist of the year, contributor to the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian, April 13, 2009, Yale Environment 360, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17573.cfm) The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong. Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long
since given up adding substantial numbers to their population. By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions - a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people - that's about 7 percent of the globalpopulation - are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions. Runaway Global Warming causes extinction Tickell, Environmental Researcher, 08
(Oliver Tickell, Campaigner and researcher on climate issues and has contributed pieces to a number of major international media outletshttp, 8/11/08, www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming , Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea
that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of
the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that
this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could
159
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
160 propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
160
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
161
***ENVIRONMENT***
161
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
162
Poverty Good-Environment
Poverty forces people to take better care of their environment National Geographic, 2008
(National Geographic, Greendex-Consumer Choice and the Environment- A Worldwide Tracking Service http://www.nationalgeographic.com/greendex/2008_survey.html)
Consumers in developing countries feel more responsible for environmental problems than those in developed countries, and six in 10 people in developing countries report that environmental problems are negatively affecting their health-twice as many as in most developed countries. Moreover, consumers
in developing countries feel strongest that global warming will worsen their way of life in their lifetime, are the most engaged when it comes to talking and listening about the environment, feel the most guilt about their environmental impact and are willing to do the most to minimize that impact. Their behavior reflects their concern. People in developing
countries are more likely to: * Live in smaller residences * Prefer green products and own relatively few appliances or expensive electronic devices * Walk, cycle, or use public transportation, and choose to live close to their most common destination
162
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
163
***SPRAWL***
163
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
164
Poverty Good- Sprawl- Turns Case

Wealth causes sprawl Miller, intern at the National center for Policy Analysis, 03
(Mark Miller, intern at the National center for Policy Analysis- research institution, 10-2-03, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba459) While many factors spur Americans' shift from urban to suburban living, the main force behind this transition
is our increasing wealth. This has raised living standards and allowed widespread automobile ownership. Economists Edward Glaeser and Matthew Kahn (2003) have shown that even in the absence of any government policies that encourage sprawl, low-density suburban communities still would proliferate because many people prefer living in areas with less traffic congestion , larger lot sizes and cheaper housing costs. Since the automobile has made transportation to and from urban centers easy and inexpensive, urban living has lost the advantage of convenience.
Sprawl destroys the habitat Towson University Center for Geographic Information Sciences, no date given
(Towson University Center for Geographic Information Sciences (CGIS) and its partners--the Towson University Department of Geography and Environmental Planning, the Maryland Space Grant Consortium, the Washington College Center for the Environment and Society, and the Maryland Virtual High School, http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/urbansprawl/causes.asp)
Sprawls impacts upon ecosystems and other environmental resources are considerable. Sprawl and associated activities degrade environmental resources such as surface water and groundwater, air quality, and landscape aesthetics, and destroys wildlife habitats. It restricts or eliminates access to natural resources/raw materials such as timber, fuel minerals, and non-fuel minerals including sand, gravel, and limestone the materials from which cities are constructed, and results in the lost of prime agricultural lands within and nearby metropolitan areas. Increase in sprawl encourages more poverty and racism Powell, Executive Director of the Institute on Race & Poverty (IRP) at the University of Minnesota Law School, 2000
( John A. Powell, B.A. Degree from Stanford University and his J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, Director on Race and Poverty at Univ of Minnesota, 2000, Race, Poverty, and Urban Sprawl: Access to Opportunities Through Regional Strategies, http://www1.umn.edu/irp/publications/racepovertyandurbansprawl.html) On the other hand, it is the abandonment of the urban core itself that creates and causes concentrated poverty, which is then used to justify white flight. It is not the poor concentrating themselves or moving to the center, but rather upper and
middle class residents moving out to the periphery that causes the isolation of low-income people of color. Policies that have encouraged sprawl over the last fifty years have also fostered concentrated poverty as key opportunities quickly followed middle-class whites flight from the urban core. Urban residents were left
behind with a declining tax base, shrinking employment opportunities, a failing educational system, and a shortage of decent, affordable housing.[42] There is an economic incentive for middle-class suburban residents to keep
out those with high needs and few resources. This, coupled with racial discrimination and whites aversion to blacks takes a high toll on low income blacks.[43]
164
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
165
Poverty Good- Sprawl Turns Case

Increasing wealth causes sprawl and exacerbates urban poverty Jargowsky, associate prof of economy @ UT Dallas, 01
(Paul A. Jargowsky, Associate Professor of Political Economy University of Texas at Dallas, June 30, 2001, Sprawl, Concentration of Poverty, and Urban Inequality, http://www.utdallas.edu/~jargo/papers/sprawl_poverty.PDF) The cumulative effect of these developments was a sea change in the role of cities in the American class system. Historically, movements of poor persons into the urban core, seeking a port of entry into the American mainstream, led to the concentration of urban poverty. But by 1970, a different dynamic began to the develop. The white middle-class,
followed by the black middle class, began to leave the inner-city for suburban destinations. Selective migration of the non-poor out of the central city replaced selective migration of the poor into the central city as a key mechanism leading to increases in the concentration of poverty (Jargowsky and Bane,
1991; Wilson 1987). A number of cities, particularly in Texas and California, continue to have significant streams of poor people migrating in from abroad (Frey 1993). Only in these cities are the populations of central city residential neighborhoods growing. For most metropolitan areas, however, the primary trend has been deconcentration. As Berry and Gillard (1977: 1) noted, counter-urbanization has replaced urbanization as the dominant force shaping the nation's settlement patterns.
165
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
166
Sprawl Bad- Ecosystem

Sprawl threatens to collapse the ecosystem Bekele, Masters degree in Real Estate Management , 05
(Haregewoin Bekele, Masters degree in Real Estate Management@ Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, Urbanization and Urban Sprawl, Department of Infrastructure Section of Building and Real Estate Economics http://www.infra.kth.se/byfa/publikationer/examensarbeten/2005/294.pdf)
All sprawl leads to loss of limited resource, which is land. Over the years, sprawl has directly contributed to the degradation and decline of natural habitats such as wetlands, woodlands and wildlife. It also reduces farmland and open spaces. Water use and energy consumption will be increased. Sprawl leads to land-use patterns which are unfavourable to the development of sustainable transport modes and hence, increase the use of private car that in turn result in increased trip lengths, congestion, increase in fuel consumption and air pollution. It is in general a threat to ecology. Even though automobile and truck engines have become far cleaner in recent decades, motor vehicle emissions are still the leading sources of air pollution. As
homes and businesses spread further and further apart, local governments are forced to provide for widely spaced services and infrastructure leading to higher costs and increased tax burden.
Environmental collapse causes extinction Diner, Vice chief of Staff, 94

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss
166
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
167
Sprawl- Species Extinction

Sprawl causes species extinction Blair, Associate Professor at University of Minnesota, 2004
(Robert B. Blair, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, PhD. @Stanford, 2004, Ecology and Society Vol. 9 No. 5 Article 2 The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Birds at Multiple Levels of Biological Organization, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss5/art2/) Urban sprawl affects the environment in myriad ways. Although urban expansion has resulted in the conversion of croplands, pastures, and forests into built environments on a massive scale (Alig and Healy 1987), little is known about the effects of urbanization at any level of biological organization from genes through landscapes. Ecologists have traditionally worked in relatively pristine environments (Cairns 1988) and, consequently, have failed to incorporate humans and their institutions as agents in the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems (McDonnell and Pickett 1990). Although the ecology of urban areas has been an area of investigation for many years, including a paper that appeared in the first issue of Ecology (Huntington 1920), many researchers believed that, for the field of ecology to progress, studies had to occur in areas that were not subject to human pressures (Grimm et al. 2000). This view slowly changed during the 1990s with the publication of the work of Vitousek et al. (1997), which recognized the human domination of Earth's ecosystems, and with the establishment by the U.S. National Science Foundation of urban-based Long-Term Ecological Research sites in Baltimore, Maryland, and Phoenix, Arizona. Growing interest in the ecological functioning of urban areas coincided with the realization that the United States is no longer a rural nation. In 1900, 40% of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, and 60% lived in rural areas. Today, 50% of the population of the United States lives in suburbs, and another 30% lives in cities (U.S. Census Bureau 2001). Migration to the suburbs is also increasing the extent of urban sprawl. Many urban areas are growing larger while the density of their human populations is simultaneously decreasing, with urban areas expanding at about twice the rate of the populations in many cities (Benfield et al. 1999, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2000). Smaller suburban communities actually occupy more
land area than do major metropolitan areas, and migration to suburban communities will increase this difference (Katz and Bradley 1999). For example, of the 9224 km2 of urbanized land in Ohio, 7186 km2 are occupied by
communities with fewer than 50,000 residents, whereas only 2038 km2 are occupied by more populous communities (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). As a result of the growth in urban settlement, approximately 5% of the United States is covered by urban areas, which is more than the area covered by national parks, state parks, and Nature Conservancy preserves combined (Stein et al. 2000, McKinney 2002). Increased urban and suburban development and its subsequent sprawl can lead to huge conservation challenges (McKinney 2002). Urban development increases local extinction rates and the rates of loss of native species (Marzluff 2001). In addition, urban development is likely to lead to the replacement of native species by non-native species (Kowarik 1995, Blair 1996, Blair and Launer 1997, Blair 2001a,b). Although the severity of the disturbance caused by urban sprawl is similar
to that caused by deforestation, it is more permanent, and the affected lands are less likely to revert to predisturbance conditions (McKinney 2002).
167
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
168
***ECON***
168
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
169
Poverty Good- Econ

Wealth inequality increases growth Rodrguez, 2k (Francisco, Professor of Economics @ University of Maryland, A Background Note for the World Development
Report 2000, Inequality, Economic Growth and Economic Performance http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resou rces/WDR/ Background/rodriguez.pdf)
Partridge (1997) has used a panel of U.S. states to test whether inequality is associated with growth. His findings are that equality as measured by the share of median income in GDP is positively related with growth (confirming the AR/PT findings) but that the Gini coefficient is also positively related with growth. As the
Gini is an index of inequality, this latter finding contradicts the PT/AR findings. Partridges findings imply that, if the ratio of median income to GDP is held constant, greater inequality is associated with greater growth. Several observations must be made with respect to Partridges findings. First, Partridge uses tenyear averages but does not present pure cross-sectional regressions. The observations made above with respect to long-run/short-run effects apply here. Second, Partridge is not open to the charge of data quality problems that the panel studies are because he uses high quality comparable data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Third, more unequal societies generally have both a higher Gini index and a lower share of median income in GNP. For example, if the distribution of income is a lognormal distribution with density ln(y,) an increase in will lead to an increase in both the Gini and the share of the median. As the lognormal density generally gives a good fit of income distributions6, the relevant empirical question would be whether societies with higher s will grow less or more. A possible reinterpretation of the evidence would take Barros and Partridges findings to jointly imply that inequality can be good for growth in rich countries, but not in poor countries. Another possible intrepretation of the literature is that the panel data studies (including Partridge) are mostly picking up short or medium-run effects. A short or medium run effect of inequality on growth may still be very relevant for issues of policy design, but the long run effect is more important from the point of view of well-being.
Wealth inequality helps the economy- status seeking Pham, 5 (Thi Kim, Professor @ University of Strasbourg, European Journal of Political economy, Economic growth and status-seeking through personal wealth June 2005, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? _ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V97-4DXJYN71&_user=4257664&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5891&_sort=d &_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=efbb0885 8f9ec49caf30f5dd9aadd6b1#SECX4)
Standard economic growth models generally predict a negative relation between inequality and growth. For instance, Murphy et al. (1989) found a negative relation in considering the effects of wealth distribution on the composition of demand and the techniques of production. The introduction of status-seeking into growth model provides a relation between wealth distribution and growth that differs from the usual link found in the growth literature. In my model, since income divergence is due to difference in individual incentive to accumulate wealth, higher inequality is associated with a higher growth if it is due to a greater incentive of one group of agents to accumulate wealth. Otherwise, a higher growth rate may reduce welfare of one group of agents and increase that of other one. Finally, when the fiscal policy is endogenously determined through a voting mechanism, an increase in the strength of status motive of the majoritarian class may lead to reduced political-equilibrium growth.
169
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
170
Poverty Reduction Bad

Welfare disincentives activities that help economic growth
Finis Welch, 99 Professor of Economics @ Texas A&M (The American Economic Review, In Defense of Inequality, May 1999, http://www.jstor.org/stable/117073?seq=1)
During this period of increasing wage inequality, we have implemented a web of subsidy and assistance programs designed to buffer poverty that appear to have drawn many into simply not working. I do not argue that the growth in the proportions of prime-aged men who do not work is the exclusive fault of such programs. Falling real wages have created incentives to search for alternatives to work; among others, the anti-poverty programs have provided such alternatives.
This is all good, but it is not all there is. 1 hope I have made the following points: (i) In the abstract, inequality is good,
and increasing inequality is not necessarily bad. (ii) Regarding the past three decades, when wage inequality increased, first, the opportunities created through expanded education wage premiums have been and continue to be exploited; and second, increasing inequality within groups distinguished by race and gender coincided with reduced inequality between the same groups. Attempts to ameliorate effects of declining wages at the bottom of the distribution have created problems of their own, as employment among those with low wage potential has dropped. These are the behavioral responses that economists are presumably trained to anticipate; they are what others refer to as unintended consequences.
170
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
171
AT: Econ Impact

Economic growth solves worldwide poverty. Richard H. Adams, Jr. World Bank Policy Researcher. February 2003. Economic Growth, Inequality, and Poverty
Why is economic growth so important in reducing poverty? The answer to this question has been broached at several points in this analysis. Economic growth reduces poverty because first and foremost growth has little impact on. income inequality. Income distributions do not generally change much over time. Analysis of the 50 countries and the 101 intervals included in the data set shows that income inequality rises on average less than 1.0 percent per year. Moreover, econometric analysis shows that economic growth has no statistical effect on income distribution: inequality may rise, fall or remain steady with growth. Since income distributions are relatively stable over time, economic growth - in the sense of rising incomes - has the general effect of raising incomes for all members of society, including the poor. As noted above, in many developing countries poverty, as measured by the $1 per person per day standard, tends to be "shallow" in the sense that many people are clustered right below (and above) the poverty line. Thus, even a modest rate of economic growth has the effect of "lifting" people out of poverty. Poor people are capable of using economic growth - especially labor-intensive economic growth which provides more jobs -- to "work" themselves out of poverty. Table 8 underscores these relationships by summarizing the results of recent empirical studies regarding the growth elasticity of poverty. When growth is measured by survey mean income (consumption), the point estimates of the elasticity of poverty with respect to growth are remarkably uniform: from a low of -2.12 in Bruno, Ravallion 21 and Squire (1998), to a mid-range of -2.59 in this study (excluding Eastern Europe and Central Asia), to a high of -3.12 in Ravallion and Chen (1997). In other words, on average, a 10 -percentage point increase in economic growth (measured by the survey mean) can be expected to produce between a 21.2 and 31.2 percent decrease in the proportion of people living in poverty ($1 per person per day). Economic growth reduces poverty in the developing countries of the world because average incomes of the poor tend to rise proportionately with those of the rest of the population. The fact that economic growth is so critical in reducing poverty highlights the need to accelerate economic growth throughout the developing world. Present rates of economic growth in the developing world are simply too low to make a meaningful dent in poverty. As measured by per capita GDP, the average rate of growth for the 50 low income and lower middle income countries in this paper was 2.66 percent per year. As measured by mean survey income (consumption), the average rate of growth in these 50 countries was even lower: a slightly negative -0.90 percent per year (Table 3). In the future, these rates of economic growth need to be significantly increased. In particular, more work needs to be done on identifying the elements used for achieving successful high rates of economic growth and poverty reduction in certain regions of the developing world (e.g., East Asia and South Asia), and applying the lessons of this work to the continuing growth and poverty needs in other areas, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
171
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
172
Poverty Good-Econ/Science
Poverty is key to a stable economy and advanced medical R&D Time Magazine 71
(Time Magazine, June 21, 1971, Poverty May Be Good for You, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,905204,00.html) Ignorance, lack of specialized training, discrimination and substandard wages are the reasons usually cited for the persistence of poverty in the affluent U.S. But Sociologist Herbert J. Gans of M.I.T. believes that there is a
more subtle underlying cause for the substandard living conditions of millions of Americans. Poverty, Gans says, continues to exist because it performs useful functions for many members of society.
Writing for the July-August issue of Social Policy, Gans lists more than a dozen economic, social and political uses of poverty. One of the most important is the job market that it creates for penologists, criminologists, social workers, public health workers, crusading journalists and OEO paraprofessionals. In other words, Gans suggests, many people who are presumably fighting poverty actually profit from it. Besides, the poor "support medical innovation" as patients in teaching and research hospitals, and they constitute "a labor pool that is willingor, rather, unable to be unwillingto perform dirty work at low cost." Poor people "prolong the economic usefulness" of day-old bread, secondhand clothes and cars and deteriorated buildings; they also provide income for
incompetent doctors, lawyers and teachers who might otherwise be an economic drain on society.
172
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
173
***JOBS***
173
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
174
Poverty Good- Jobs

Poverty creates more jobs Gans, Prof. of sociology @ Columbia, 94
(Herbert J. Gans, 78th President of the American Sociological Association, served as Soociate and Adjunct Professor at Teachers College, as well as Research Associate for the Institute for Urban Studies and Planning at MIT, Sept. 1994, "Positive functions of the undeserving poor: Uses of the underclass in America." Politics & Society Vol. 22 Issue 3, p269. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed July 25, 2009) Job creation. Perhaps the most important economic function of the undeserving poor today is that their mere presence creates jobs for the better-off population, including professional ones. Since the undeserving poor are thought to be dangerous or improperly socialized, their behavior either has to be modified so that they act in socially approved ways, or they have to be isolated from the deserving sectors of society. The larger the number of people who are declared undeserving, the
larger also the number of people needed to modify and isolate as well as control, guard, and care for them. Among these are the social workers, teachers, trainers, mentors, psychiatrists, doctors and their support staffs in juvenile training centers, "special" schools, drug treatment centers, and penal behavior modification institutions, as well as the police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, court officers, probation personnel and others who constitute the criminal courts, and the guards and others who run the prisons. Jobs created by the presence of undeserving poor also include the massive bureaucracy of professionals, investigators, and clerks who administer welfare. Other jobs go to the officials who seek out poor fathers for child support monies they may or may not have, as well as the welfare office personnel needed to take recipients in violation of welfare rules off the rolls, and those needed to put them back on the rolls when they reapply. In fact, one can argue that some of the
rules for supervising, controlling, and punishing the undeserving poor are more effective at performing the latent function of creating clerical and professional jobs for the better-off population than the manifest function of achieving their official goals. More jobs are
created in the social sciences and in journalism for conducting research about the undeserving poor and producing popular books, articles, and TV documentaries for the more fortunate who want to learn about them. The "job chain" should also be extended to the teachers and others who train those who serve, control, and study the undeserving poor. In addition, the undeserving poor make jobs for what I call the salvation industries, religious, civil, or medical, which also try to modify the behavior of those stigmatized as undeserving. Not all
such jobs are paid, for the undeserving poor also provide occasional targets for charity and thus offer volunteer jobs for those providing itand paid jobs for the professional fundraisers who obtain most of the charitable funds these days. Among the most visible volunteers are the members of "cafe" and "high" society who organize and Contribute to these benefits.16
174
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
175
***TERRORISM***
175
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
176
Poverty doesnt Terrorism

The level of political freedom of a country effects terrorism, not economic standing
Erin Connelly, 12/2/08, research coordinator at the Helfgott Research Institute at the National College of Natural Medicine, Is Poverty linked to Terrorism?, http://www.globalenvision.org/2008/12/02/poverty-linked-terrorism Back in 2002, the general consensus was that poverty relief efforts could be a leading tactic in the fight against terror. Since then, however, a number of researchers have taken issue with this correlation, starting with the fact that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by middle-to-upper-class men. (A 2003 paper suggests that terrorist groups may recruit well-educated, well-off members because they can blend into their Western targets.) Harvard professor Alberto Abadie ties the rate of terror events to a nation's political
freedom as well as its size, elevation and weather but not its economic status. Political rights in a country gauges the level of terrorism
Carlos Lozada, associate editor at Foreign Policy Magazine, 05/2005, Does Poverty Cause Terrorism?, http://www.nber.org/cgibin/printit?uri=/digest/may05/w10859.html Unlike other recent studies on the causes of terrorism, Abadie's work explores not only transnational instances of terrorism but also domestic ones. This difference is telling: In 2003, the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base reported only 240 cases of transnational terrorism compared to 1,536 instances of domestic terrorism. Furthermore, Abadie suggests that the
determinants of transnational and domestic terrorism may differ. "Much of modern-day transnational terrorism seems to generate from grievances against rich countries," he writes. "In addition, in some cases terrorist groups may decide to attack property or nationals of rich countries in order to gain international publicity. As a result, transnational terrorism may predominantly affect rich countries. The same is not necessarily true for domestic terrorism."
While many studies have relied on measures of terrorism-related casualties or terrorist incidences as a proxy for the risk of terrorism, Abadie uses country-level ratings on terrorist risk from the Global Terrorism Index of the World Market Research Center, an international risk-rating agency. The index assesses terrorism risk in 186 countries and territories. In order to measure poverty, Abadie uses World Bank data on per capita gross domestic product as well as the United Nations Human Development Index and or the Gini coefficient (a measure of country-level income inequality). He also uses
Freedom House's political rights index as a measure of country-level political freedom and employs measures of linguistic, ethnic, and religious fractionalization. Finally, he includes data on climate and geography, since it is well known that certain geographic characteristics -- such as being land-locked or in an area that is difficult to access -- may offer safe haven to terrorist groups and facilitate training.
After controlling for the level of political rights, fractionalization, and geography, Abadie concludes that per capita national income is not significantly associated with terrorism. He finds, though, that lower levels of political rights are linked to higher levels of terrorism countries with the highest levels of political rights are also the countries that suffer the lowest levels of terrorism. However, the relationship between the level of political rights and terrorism is not a simple linear one. Countries in an intermediate range of political rights experience a greater risk of
terrorism than countries either with a very high degree of political rights or than severely authoritarian countries with very low levels of political rights.
176
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
177

Terrorists try and recruit those with higher education eradicating poverty wont reduce terrorism
Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, Fall 2003, (Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and Associate Professor, Institute for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Charles University), Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection? http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf Furthermore, terrorist organizations may prefer to select those who have better education . Between 1996 and 1999, Nasra Hassan (2001), a relief worker for the United Nations, interviewed nearly 250 militants and associates of militant involved in the Palestinian cause, including failed suicide bombers, the families of deceased bombers and those who trained and prepared suicide bombers for their missions. One Hamas leader Ms. Hassan interviewed claimed, Our biggest problem is the hordes of young men who beat on our doors, clamoring to be sent [on suicide missions]. It is difficult to select only a few. A planner for Islamic Jihad explained to Ms. Hassan that his group scrutinizes the motives of a potential bomber to be sure that the individual is committed to carrying out the task. Apparently, the groups generally
reject for suicide bombing missions those who are under eighteen, who are the sole wage earners in their families, or who are married and have family responsibilities. A high level of educational attainment is probably a signal of ones commitment to a cause and determination, as well as of ones
ability to prepare for an assignment and carry it off. The demand side of the terrorism phenomenon is often neglected.
Suicide bombers are clearly not motivated by the prospect of their own individual economic gain, although the promise of larger payments to their families may increase the willingness of some to participate in suicide bombing missions.3 We suspect their primary motivation results from their passionate support for their movement. Eradication of poverty and universal secondary education are unlikely to change these feelings. Indeed, those who are well-off and well-educated may even
perceive such feelings more acutely.
Hate crimes are unrelated to the economic levels

Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, Fall 2003, (Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and Associate Professor, Institute for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Charles University), Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection? http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf The evidence of a connection between economic conditions and hate crimes is highly elusive.5 Green, Glaser and Rich (1998) report time series evidence on the incidence of hate crimes against blacks, Jews, Asians and gay men and lesbians using data from New York City each month from 1987 to 1995. They found that the incidence of these crimes was unrelated to the citys unemployment rate. Across regions in a given year, the occurrence of hate crimes and prevalence of hate groups are also found to be unrelated to economic circumstances of the area. Jefferson and Pryor (1999), for example, examined determinants of th existence of hate groups across counties in the United States in 1997, using a list of hate groups assembled by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Specifically, they used logistic regressions to relate the characteristics of counties to the likelihood that the county was home to a chapter of a hate group. About 10 percent of the 3,100 counties in the continental United States contained one or more hate group, like the Ku Klux Klan. The existence of hate groups was unrelated to the unemployment rate, divorce rate, percentage black or gap in per capita income between whites and blacks in the county. The share of the adult
population with a high school diploma or higher had a statistically significant, positive association with the probability that a hate group was located in the area. They concluded, [E]conomic or sociological explanations for the existence of hate groups in an area are far less important than adventitious circumstances due to history and particular conditions.
177
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
178

Terrorism is a form a political engagement which the wealthy are more likely to participate in
Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova, Fall 2003, (Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and Associate Professor, Institute for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Charles University), Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection? http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf
Enough evidence has accumulated that it is fruitful to conjecture why participation in terrorism and political violence is apparently unrelated, or even positively related, to individuals income and education. In terms of the supply of terrorists, we hypothesize that terrorism resembles a violent form of political engagement. More educated people from privileged backgrounds are more likely to participate in politics, probably in part because political involvement requires some minimum level
of interest, expertise, commitment to issues and effort, all of which are more likely if people have enough education and income to concern themselves with more than minimum economic subsistence. Our finding that terrorists are more likely to spring from countries that lack civil rights, if it holds up, is further support for the view that terrorism is a political, not economic, phenomenon. On the demand side, terrorist organizations may prefer educated, committee individuals. In addition, well-
educated, middle- or upper-class individuals are better suited to carry out acts of international terrorism than are impoverished illiterates because the terrorists must fit into a foreign environment to be successful.
178
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
179
***DEMOCRACY***
179
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
180
Democracy doesnt help Poverty

Democracy is not essential to combat poverty
Simi Kamal, founder and chair of the think tank Hisaar Foundation, 6-6- 2K, The Democracy-Poverty Nexus: Summary on Issues of Participation, http://archive.idea.int/df/2000df/papers_presented_1.html
At policy and programme levels there is very little to link democracy and poverty, except that "free markets" are touted as the panacea for both economic development and democratic development. Democracy has not always meant improved living standards for the population and the political system
has not always mattered when it comes to factors necessary for economic growth and poverty reduction. Sometimes undemocratic regimes have been successful in reducing poverty, even though they could not provide a comprehensive framework of political and social development and their efforts were often unsustainable. It can be
argued that the success of these non-democratic, economic models was limited because the state propelled the models and the citizens were not fully involved. Democracy implies the guarantee and protection
of basic freedoms and rights of citizens, accountable and transparent governance and opportunities for citizens to participate in policy matters and decision making. Equipped with assets, education, good health and organized freely in their own organizations, citizens are suppose to safeguard their democratic values, principles and institutions as well as use their energies to improve their welfare (ie emerge from poverty).
US democracy is the most unequal among other democratic countries

Steven Hill and Rob Ritchie, the senior analyst for the Center for Voting and Democracy and the Executive Director of FairVote, 6-1-2003, American Democracy Could Use A Closer Look The Day, http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/amerdemocloserlook.htm Combined with the complete absence of African Americans and Latinos in the U.S. Senate, the stalling of women's representation in Congress, the muted response to the presidential election debacle in Florida, and the history of duplicitous, poll-driven campaigns where winning candidates change their spots right after the election, it's no surprise that government is dangerously adrift from the needs and desires of average Americans. The resulting cynicism and resignation
contribute to the United States having the lowest voter participation among well-established democracies.
This lack of democracy matters, not only in and of itself but because of how it negatively impacts the national policies that affect everyday Americans. By numerous counts, the United States is the most unequal society among
advanced democracies, with that inequality having glaring racial/ethnic, age, and gender dimensions. Child poverty in the U.S. is 20 percent, the highest by far in the Western world except Russia. Despite being the world's lone remaining superpower, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other similarly well-established democracies.
We have far more citizens lacking health care, and a lower life expectancy, and the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Decades of struggle for civil liberties are being rolled back month by month. In fact, according to the New America Foundation's Ted Halstead, our performance on many social indicators is so
poor that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation.
180
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
181
***SMOKING***
181
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
182
Not Smoking Econ Collapse 1/2

A. Removing persons from poverty helps them quit smoking. Leinsalu, Tekkel, and Kunst 2007
(Mall Leinsalu, Mare Tekkel, and Anton E. Kunst, Stockholm Centre on Health of Societies in Transition (SCOHOST), Sdertrn University College, Huddinge, Sweden and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia, Estonian Centre of Excellence in Behavioral and Health Sciences, Tartu-Tallinn, Estonia and Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 3-5-2007, European Journal of Public Health) The cessation of smoking showed a different pattern of social variation where the indicators of current social disadvantage were more important in explaining low cessation rates among ever regular smokers (table 2). Lower cessation rates were observed among the unemployed, among those in lower occupational positions and for those in the low-income group. These associations remained after controlling for the other social variables among men but not among women. The strongest association was found with income: 36% of men in the high-income group had quit smoking compared with only 16% of men in the low-income group. At the same time there was no independent association between educational level and smoking cessation when all the age groups were combined. Both occupation and income attenuated significantly this association in the multivariate models for men and women, although among men the effect of occupation was somewhat stronger (data not shown). Compared to Estonians, Russian men were less likely to have quit smoking, but the same association was not found among women. Being married or cohabiting was positively related to an individual's smoking cessation when compared to those who were divorced, separated or widowed (among women only) or who were never married (among men only). The effect of income became stronger and was statistically significant in the age groups above 34 years among men. For the other socioeconomic variables, the independent association with cessation remained for unemployment only in the 3549 age group and for the lower level non-manual occupations in the 5064 age group among men and with having a low educational level in the 3549 age group among women (data not shown). The results from the present study showed that educational level was
the strongest predictor of ever initiating regular smoking.

However, we also found independent, although weaker associations between smoking initiation and indicators of current social disadvantage such as low occupational class and unemployment. Quitting smoking among ever regular
smokers was more closely connected with indicators of current material deprivation and economic vulnerability such as having a low income or being unemployed and also with having a low occupational position. Educational level had no direct independent association with smoking cessation. The relative
importance of economic factors was larger among men than among women. Smoking was also related to demographic characteristics such as marital status, urban/rural residence and ethnicity.
182
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
183
Smoking Econ Collapse 2/2

B. Tobacco use is key to the economy. BBC News 99
(BBC News, 9-28-1999, Business: The Company File The economics of tobacco,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/459157.stm) Since Christopher Columbus first stumbled on American Indians smoking rolled-up tobacco, many companies have turned a profit from selling cigarettes. Indeed, tobacco is one of the US' oldest and most profitable industries. Domestic sales alone exceed $45bn annually. But the tobacco market has been hit by price increases, higher state taxes, increased consumer awareness of the health risks and hefty litigation costs. During 1998, US cigarette consumption fell 2% to 470 billion cigarettes. But investor confidence in the tobacco industry remains unshaken. Some
analysts still expect the tobacco industry to show earnings growth of 11.5% over the next five years.
Tobacco companies hope to replace declining revenues in mature Western markets by targeting developing countries. In Asia or Eastern Europe, the strict regulations that govern tobacco in the West often do not exist and cigarette smoking is emblematic of an affluent Western lifestyle. The potential of these markets has helped buoy shareholder expectations even as rising tobacco prices - to pay for litigation costs - cut into the volumes sold. Even without the prospect of developing markets, investors believe that tobacco companies can weather the storm. Most of the cost of litigation has been borne by US smokers, who have seen cigarette prices rise in the past 16 months by as much as during the past 16 years. The $206bn court settlement last year saw a price rise of almost 50 cents per pack. But these costs will diminish over time. New smokers, meaning anyone who started in the last 10-15 years, cannot sue because they took up smoking during a time when the health risks were publicly documented. Hence anyone who starts to smoke now just represents profit for tobacco companies. "In financial terms they are a cash machine because (cigarettes) are addictive and they are cheap to make. They are intrinsically a very profitable product," says Mr Bruce Hamilton, director of corporations at Fitch IBCA, a financial ratings agency. The "Golden Leaf" It is not just tobacco companies that benefit from the "Golden Leaf", the US government also benefits. The tobacco industry provides 50,000
manufacturing jobs and about 136,000 farming jobs directly, and generates another 400,000 jobs indirectly. Tobacco farmers enjoy a return per acre of about $1000, substantially more than other crops. Tobacco money also generates a sizeable chunk of the cash that makes up the federal budget. The US Treasury is estimated to have pocketed $118.6bn in tobacco taxes in the past 10 years. The US
government makes seven times more money from the sale of a pack of cigarettes than a cigarette maker does, R.J. Reynolds, the second biggest US tobacco company, is quick to point out. Global benefits Other countries enjoy similar economic benefits from cigarette production. The US tax on cigarettes is actually quite low. In many countries in Western Europe up to 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes goes to the taxman. In the UK, the tobacco industry generated over 10bn in tax revenue in 1998, enough to pay for three quarters of the Education and Employment Budget. The industry directly employs 9,800 people and supports about 138,500 other jobs, according to the UK's Tobacco Manufacturers Association. "Tobacco growing is a key element of the economy in many developing countries in Africa and South America," it adds. Asian economies, such as China, India and Indonesia, are also boosted by the tobacco dollar. Tobacco losses But not everyone believes that tobacco is for the economic good. "Tobacco not only kills people, it also saps national treasuries," says the World Health Organisation. It believes that the cost of smoking-related health care far outweighs the other financial benefits. Indeed, the World Bank says tobacco actually results in a global net loss of US $200bn per year. About one third of these losses are suffered in the developing world. And the detractors of tobacco companies argue that the profits from selling foreign tobacco do not benefit the developing world as they are returned straight to foreign investors.
C. Econ collapse causes global nuclear war. Mead 1992

(Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, Summer 1992, p.28.) But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their
billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than
183
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
184 Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
184
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
185
Ext. Poverty smoking

Poor, uneducated people are more like to use tobacco. Leinsalu, Tekkel, and Kunst 2007
(Mall Leinsalu, Mare Tekkel, and Anton E. Kunst, 1 Stockholm Centre on Health of Societies in Transition (SCOHOST), Sdertrn University College, Huddinge, Sweden and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia, Estonian Centre of Excellence in Behavioral and Health Sciences, Tartu-Tallinn, Estonia and Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 3-5-2007, European Journal of Public Health) In our sample, 81% of men and 46% of women had initiated smoking at some point in time in their life. Of them, 90% became regular smokers among men, whereas among women it was 80%. Twenty seven percent of male and 33% of female regular smokers had managed to quit smoking by the time of the survey. As a result of these processes, the prevalence of current regular smoking was 51% among men and 21% among women. The associations between the socioeconomic and demographic variables and smoking initiation in the 2564 age group are presented in table 1. Having a low educational level was the strongest predictor of ever initiating regular smoking. After controlling for other social variables, men with a basic education or less were still 2.5 times more likely to have initiated
regular smoking when compared to men with a higher education, while among women an almost 2fold difference between these groups was observed. Positive associations were also found for unemployment,
low occupational status and for the low-income group. However, when other social variables were controlled for, only male unemployment and having a manual occupation among men remained statistically significant predictors of smoking initiation. Among women, those in the mid-income group were significantly less likely to have initiated regular smoking. Women in Tallinn were more likely to have ever initiated regular smoking compared to the women in smaller towns and rural settlements whereas a reverse pattern was observed among men (although the association among men was not statistically significant). Never married men and women were less likely to have initiated regular smoking (significant only for men), on the other hand, the risk for initiation was higher for divorced, separated or widowed men and women (significant only for women). Women in the 5064 age group were less likely to have ever initiated regular smoking when compared to younger women. An educational gradient for smoking initiation was most noticeable in the
2534 age group where 83% of men with a basic education or less had ever initiated regular smoking compared with only 34% of men with a higher education; the respective figures among women were 64% and
24%. Among women in the age group 5064 years there was no statistically significant association between educational level and ever initiating regular smoking. As for other socioeconomic variables, the independent association with smoking initiation was observed for skilled workers in the 3549 age range, and for the semi-skilled/elementary occupations in the 2534 age group among men (data not shown).
185
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
186
Ext. Removal from poverty decreases smoking

Once removed from poverty, people stop smoking. BBC News 99
(6/1/09, BBC News, Smoking and poverty link probe, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/355372.stm) A survey will try to find out why the "quit smoking" message is failing to change the smoking habits of people in deprived areas. Professor Gerard Hastings and Jean King of the Cancer Research Campaign discuss the report Researchers, funded by the Cancer Research Campaign and pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham, will interview more than 2,500 Glasgow residents to identify ways to help low-income smokers kick the habit. Unskilled workers are two to
three times more likely to smoke than professionals and those in rented accommodation are much more likely to smoke than house owners. Research suggests that this is not because more people on low incomes take up smoking but because they are less likely to give up cigarettes than more affluent smokers. The researchers, led by Professor Gerard Hastings from the Centre for Social Marketing at the University of
Strathclyde, will be asking two main questions: * What motivates low-income smokers to try to stop smoking? * What outside help would assist them to quit? Professor Hastings said: "Researchers have found it helpful to look separately at: those who aren't considering giving up; those who are; those who are preparing to give up; those who are currently trying; those who have successfully given up and those who have never started smoking. "Each of these groups can reveal to us vital information which we can use to devise health initiatives. We will be able to see what the root of the problem is whether low-income smokers are trying to quit but not succeeding or whether quitting is something they don't even think about." From their results, researchers will identify a range of health initiatives and pilot these with low-income smokers to get feedback on what is effective and practical. Professor Gordon McVie, director-general of The Cancer Research Campaign said: "Deprivation is not only linked to high rates of smoking, it is also linked to lower-than-average chances of cancer survival. "Finding a way to help people on low incomes quit is vital if we are to see a reduction in the death toll from cancer." A pilot study carried out last year by the Strathclyde team has already established that the best way to get smokers' views on quitting is to interview them in their homes or use postal questionnaires which have an incentive to return them in the form of a 5 voucher for a high-street chemist. The postal method will be used in the wider study which begins this month. Smoking is strongly linked to stressful lifestyle as well as poverty and there are high rates of smoking among the unemployed, the divorced or separated, and lone parents. The government's White Paper, Smoking Kills, published in December 1998, included proposals to provide a week's free supply of nicotine replacement therapy to those least able to afford it.
186
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
187
Assistance is Wasted
Money given to the poor is spent on cigarettes and not food, Indonesia proves. Osman 09
(Nurfika Osman, Staff Writer, 6/30/09, Jakarta Globe, Poor Families Should Not Waste Aid on Smoking.)
Direct government cash aid given to poor families is counterproductive as more than half of the money is spent on cigarettes, according to the Indonesian Consumers Foundation. Tulus Abadi, the operational manager of the
foundation, also known as the YLKI, said on Tuesday that the government should only distribute the assistance, known as BLT, to nonsmoking families. Not smoking should be one of the conditions for the families to receive the funds, Tulus said. Otherwise, they will keep on spending their money on cigarettes, he added. According to the 2007 National Socioeconomic Survey (Susenas), 12 million out of 19 million poor families in rural areas who received BLT spent Rp 52,000 ($5) monthly on cigarettes. Families eligible for the BLT program receive Rp 100,000 each month in direct cash assistance. Tulus said that nationally, poor families in villages spent 14 percent of their total income on cigarettes, the second-highest expenditure after food, at 19 percent. Another survey conducted by Susenas in 2008 found that in large cities across the country, poor families spent 22 percent of their income on cigarettes while 19 percent was allocated for food. Tulus said the BLT program would not ease poverty because the money was being spent on the wrong things. Instead of spending the aid on education and food, they [poor families] spend it on cigarettes and it does not help them at all, he said. Last month, Farid Anfasa Moeloek, former head of the Indonesian Doctors Association and a former health minister, said Indonesia was facing a potential lost generation because money was being allocated to cigarettes instead of food in households where the father was a smoker. Research conducted by the School of Public Health at the University of Indonesia in 2007 showed that 44 percent of babies in West Nusa Tenggara and 41 percent in East Nusa Tenggara suffered from malnutrition. The study found that many of the infants suffered from malnutrition because 71.4 percent of fathers in West Nusa Tenggara and 61.9 percent in East Nusa Tenggara were active smokers. Tulus said Unicef data showed that of the 162,000 infants in the country who died in 2006, 32,400 deaths were due to malnutrition and were linked to having a smoker in the family. In 2004, Indonesia joined 167 countries in signing the World Health Organizations Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, but is one of only four nations yet to ratify the treaty.
Aid gets wasted on the pooron average low income families spend 10% of their money on tobacco. World Health Organization 09
(World Health Organization, 2009, Why http://www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en/index.html is tobacco a public health priority?
Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide (about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020. Half the people that smoke today -that is about 650 million people- will eventually be killed by tobacco. Tobacco is the fourth most common risk factor for disease worldwide. The economic costs of tobacco use are equally devastating. In addition to the high public health costs of treating tobacco-caused diseases, tobacco kills people at the height of their productivity, depriving families of breadwinners and nations of a healthy workforce. Tobacco users are also less productive while they are alive due to increased sickness. A 1994 report estimated that the use of tobacco resulted in an annual global net loss of US$ 200 thousand million, a third of this loss being in developing countries.
Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco. This means that these families have less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. In addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health care costs and premature death. It also contributes to a higher illiteracy rate, since money that could have been used for education is spent on tobacco instead. Tobacco's role in exacerbating poverty has been largely ignored by researchers in both fields. Experience has shown that there are many cost-effective tobacco control measures that can be used in different
settings and that can have a significant impact on tobacco consumption. The most cost-effective strategies are population-wide public policies, like bans on direct and indirect tobacco advertising, tobacco tax and price increases, smoke-free environments in all public and workplaces, and large clear graphic health messages on tobacco packaging. All these measures are discussed on the provisions of
187
POVERTY BAD/GOOD.
DDI 09
188
the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Smoking hurts the economy

Smoking costs the USFG billions each year. Stop Smoking.com No Date Given
(Stopsmoking.com, Quitting Smoking Has Some Economic Benefits,http://www.stop-smoking-updates.com/quitsmoking/quittingbenefits/economic-benefits/economic-benefits.htm) Quitting smoking has economic benefits for you as well as for the government. But, first we would have to know the economic costs of smoking which will make us understand the economic benefits better. Needless to say, the immediate benefit of quitting smoking is that you will have more cash in your pocket. In the language of economics,
there is whooping $130 billion of real resource costs of smoking in The United States. That is to say this $130 billion is more burdensome to the US economy than the same levied as taxes. It imposes a tax on the consumer, but provides offsetting revenues to the government. According to a study, smoking related illnesses cost the US, $60 billion per year. It can only mean one thing- the waste of scarce medical resources. If we
can eliminate smoking tomorrow, the resulting savings can partially offset our GDP deficits. If a smoker smokes more than one packet a day, he will spend an amount of $25000 while a Masters degree cost around $22000 in the US. Smoking related externalities, like fire caused by smoking cost the US $500 million apart from human lives. So, you can well imagine the benefits of quitting smoking. Another economic cost of smoking is the reduced productive capacity of the economy and the cost from shortened lives. Smokers tend to be younger and retire sooner. This carries a price of $80 billion to the US economy due to lost output and lost wages . Also the absentee rate among smokers is very high. You might have never thought about these implications earlier but these are the points which need your attention. If not paid heed, they are capable of resulting into costs much higher than the present figures.
188

7 Generic Olsen Poverty Bad Good

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 Generic Olsen Poverty Bad Good

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POVERTY BAD/GOOD.

Structural violence HIV

and adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet many of them are preventable.

spread of HIV will help reduce poverty.

AT: Poverty goodChild Labor

Poverty bad- Child labor

Poverty Bad- Environment

Poverty Bad- Deforestation

Poverty Bad- Desertification

Environmental collapse causes extinction Diner, Vice chief of Staff, 94

Poverty Bad- Air Pollution

Poverty Bad- Water Pollution

Poverty Bad- Global Warming

Poverty Bad- Environment

Poverty Bad- Sprawl

Poverty Bad- Sprawl

Poverty Bad- Sprawl

may be edging closer to the abyss.

Poverty Bad- Soft Power

Poverty Bad- Soft Power

Poverty Bad- Soft Power

Poverty Bad- Soft Power

Poverty bad- soft power

Poverty Bad- Soft Power

Poverty Bad- Obesity Module

Obesity Impact- Econ

Poverty Bad- Econ Module

Poverty Bad- Econ Module

Ext- Poverty bad- Econ

Ext- hurts the economy

Ext- hurts the economy

Ext- hurts the economy

Ext- hurts the economy

Ext- hurts the economy

Ext- stops economic reform

AT: income/efficiency tradeoff

AT: Wealth gap growth

AT: Econ growth solves poverty

Poverty Guns Violence

Poverty increases guns

our poorest neighborhoods. Poverty leads to juvenile gun violence

Poverty Gun Violence

Poverty Gun Violence

Poverty Arms Trade

Democracy Helps Poverty

Democracy helps poverty

between poverty and democracy.

Poverty Prevents Voting

Poverty Prevents Voting

Poverty Prevents Voting

Television hurts Democracy

should avoid the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.

Tobacco Bad - Environment

Tobacco Bad - Economy

Poverty Kills Children

Poverty Kills Children

Poverty Kills Children

Poverty furthers gender inequality.

Poverty perpetuates racist stereotypes about black women.

Poverty BadLaundry List

Poverty Sex Trafficking

POVERTY GOOD, OMG.

Bees module 1/3

Bees module 2/3