[Note: This article was originally posted last summer.]
There is a particular group of Americans, many of them Christians, who don’t give much thought to their material wealth. Forty-six percent of them not only own their own homes but have more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. Nearly three-quarters of them live in households which own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of their households have a color television and over half own two or more. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player while 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.*
Some of them vote Republican. Others would identify with the “Religious Right.” More than a few of them are evangelicals. This group of citizens are among the richest humans in the world yet give almost nothing in order to relieve the suffering of their less fortunate neighbors on the planet.
Who are these people? In America we call them “the poor.”
Before you accuse me of being callous, let me say that I once belonged in that group. I grew up in the 1970s and spent two extended periods of my childhood living below the "poverty line."
The first experience came as I entered the first grade. My father was a chronically unhappy man who was skillful, ambitious, and lazy. We moved often so that he could try his hand at a new occupation -- a truck driver in Arkansas, a cop in West Texas, a bouncer at a honky-tonk near Louisiana -- causing us to always be on the move, always a few weeks away from the next paycheck. At the lowest point we had nothing to eat but a half-loaf of bread, a 5-gallon bucket of unshelled peanuts, and tap water. That lasted for a two weeks period in August that stretched across my seventh birthday.
Eventually my father settled down, found steady work, and we inched our way slowly toward the lower rungs of the middle-class. This period of tranquility lasted until I was eleven and he walked out on my mother, my younger brother, and me. We packed the car and moved again, my mother having acquired the nomadic tendency to run away from adversity. (By the time I graduated high school, I had changed schools nineteen times.) Single parenthood tipped the scales for our home and we slipped, once again, beneath the poverty threshold. We survived with the aid of food stamps and government housing until my sophomore year when my mother remarried and our lives returned to a level of economic normalcy.
I’m always hesitant to share this story because we in America tend to have a knee-jerk sympathy for the “down and out.” There are, however, many times, like in my family’s case, when pity is completely unwarranted. A lifetime of foolish decisions by my parents, rather than a dismal economy or lack of opportunity, led to our being poor. We reaped what they had sowed.
But while being poor can be difficult, it isn’t the tragedy that many might be inclined to believe. From an early age I knew that while many people had more than I did, others had it much, much worse. That lesson was seared into my conscience while sitting in a pew watching Baptist missionaries present a slideshow detailing their latest mission trip. The images of true poverty gave our tiny congregation a glimpse into the everyday life in Ethiopia, a time of famine when a bucket of unshelled peanuts would be considered a feast. I was struck by the realization that as little as we had, these people had less. I was white-trash Texas poor; these people were Africa poor.
Looking back, I realize that many would have looked on me as I looked on these African children: creatures to be pitied. Though they were much like me, I had put them in the category of The Other. It was almost as if these families, who didn’t even have a mobile home and a broken down Buick to call their own, were a different type of Christians. I was struck by this reflection as I read Abraham Kuyper’s “The Problem of Poverty”:
There cannot be two different faiths -- one for you and one for the poor. The question on which the whole social problem really pivots is whether you recognize in the less fortunate, even in the poorest, not merely a creature, a person in wretched circumstances, but one of your own flesh and blood: for the sake of Christ, your brother. It is exactly this noble sentiment that, sad to say, has been weakened and dulled in such a provoking manner by the materialism of this century.
In our own country even the poor are dulled by materialism. Many of them have more possessions than the rich young ruler who Jesus had told to sell all he had in order to find salvation. But how many of those in poverty would give up all they had? Even the poor would be hesitant to part with their bounty.
The problem of poverty, at least in America, is not just that it makes it difficult for people to fulfill their material needs, its that it blinds them to the needs of those with even less. After all, what the truly destitute -- those without food and shelter -- need most isn’t a handout or a redistribution of wealth. What they need are Christians who are willing to heed Jesus’ command. As Kuyper points out:
For deeds of love are indispensable. Obviously, the poor man cannot wait until the restoration of our social structure has been completed. Almost certainly he will not live long enough to see that happy day. Nevertheless, he still has to live, he must feed his hungry mouth, and the mouths of his hungry family. Therefore, vigorous help is necessary. However highly I am inclined to praise your willingness to make sacrifices -- and this is possible through God’s grace to many of you -- nevertheless, the holy art of “giving for Jesus’ sake” ought to be much more strongly developed among us Christians. Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your savior.
The fact that the government has to have a “safety net” to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that Christians fail to do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps. The care of a community isn’t provided with government housing. The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher. What the poor need is not another government program but Christians who are willing to honor their savior.
Christians in the upper and middle classes have a duty and responsibility to ensure the material needs of their neighbors are met. But “poor” Christians have a duty as well. Being wealthier than 95% of the rest of the planet, they should aid those who are even less fortunate.
In Christ day, the Jews were instructed to give to the Temple and to the poor as part of their service to God. Jesus praised the poor widow who gave “two mites” for she had “put more into the treasury than all the others.” The others had given out of their wealth, but she had given out of her poverty.
Every Christian who drives their own car to the home they own, sits down to a hearty meal, and changes the channel when images of starving children flicker across the screens of their color TVs, will eventually have to stand before their Creator. When he asks if they fed their brother when he was hungry or clothed their sister when she was cold, how many will say, “I couldn’t give, Lord. I lived in poverty...”?
*Understanding Poverty in America by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D
1
I was white-trash Texas poor; these people were Africa poor.
Maybe you didn't notice it - I mentioned it on my blog- but all the rest of the world saw no difference between "Africa poor" and the people trapped in the sports stadium in New Orleans.
In our own country even the poor are dulled by materialism. Many of them have more possessions than the rich young ruler who Jesus had told to sell all he had in order to find salvation. But how many of those in poverty would give up all they had? Even the poor would be hesitant to part with their bounty.
Let me mention something: there's a whooole lot of difference between taking a vow of poverty and having poverty imposed on you. You know that somewhere, of course, from your experience.
The fact that the government has to have a “safety net” to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that Christians fail to do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity.
And "Christian charity" (or Buddhist charity or Muslim charity, for that matter) cannot take the place of a dedication to the commweal. The objective of the state is to provide for security, to make sure people are able to live, to prosper (without getting to specific there for a moment), and to make sure the society is stable enough for that to happen.
That means real concrete stuff, policies, things done for objectives that are agnostic to a religious belief about charity.
The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher.
No, that welfare voucher is going to Caesar... just think of it that way...
Being wealthier than 95% of the rest of the planet, they should aid those who are even less fortunate.
Ummm...that just isn't true, on a per-person basis.
The USA is not what it used to be; it may be the wealthiest country, but wealth is disproportionately distributed. The poor here are quite poor. The thing is, you can be poor here, be an undocumented laborer, e.g., work extremely hard, and send money back home to your relatives- who will enjoy a higher standard of living than the worker in his country because the cost of living is lower there for the "necessities."
I'm all for charity giving; I do it myself, but again, it does not abrogate the obligation of all citizens to help promote the stability and integrity of the country.
Or, let me put it another way: many countries of the world are eating our breakfast in this area, not the least in part because they spend money on the commonweal (like schools), and because we spend substantially less.
Conservative government - especially conservative government based on the religious principle of "privatizing" assistance to the poor, has been an abject failure insofar as promoting social stability and harmony is concerned. There is no moral virtue in making society less stable.
Yes people need "more than a handout," but that is a false dichotomy: there are ways to provide assistance to the needy that are effective. It is simply ghastly to attempt a moral justification for not implementing anti-poverty government policies because your religious beliefs tell you to give to the poor. That is a false morality that relies on an existence of poor people to be helped. It is like the Aztecs whose religion relied on a supply of humans to be sacrificed.
Yes, we can't eliminate poverty, but the idea that we shouldn't try to improve things- well, that's yet another example of a failed belief system that fails in practice. And we know it from before: why do you think the social welfare was put into place in the first place? It's because "charity" couldn't do it.
2
One other quick comment: the "stuff" that the poor have doesn't really keep them all that poor.
Or, as the blog Sadly, No! put it, according to heritage, you're not poor unless your starving, cold and naked.
The "study" was debunked shortly after it came out; despite "polls" of "poor people" asking what kind of stuff they had (sample methodology?) and not including real costs (like health care and education), that either keep the poor poor or keep them from transcending their class.
3
"We packed the car and moved again, my other having acquired the nomadic tendency to run away from adversity."
Need to correct the spelling of "mother", but that is a GREAT line.
Nice post, JC.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:02 AM4
First of all, no country in the world spends more on schools than the US, so you need to find another example.
Forbes magazine a few years ago did a study, what is the difference between the financially successful and the unsuccessful in America? Answer: it wasn't education, it wasn't parenting, it wasn't even income. It was hours worked in a week. Most successful people put in over 50 hours per week and, as most of them are self-employed, it is usually much higher than that when they first started their businesses.
Going from 40 hours per week to 50 will for most people MORE THAN DOUBLE THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME. How is this? Because so much goes to cover living expenses, taxes, food, that there is only so much left over at the end of the month. Tack on an extra $600 a month, and invest that properly--gradually you become rich.
I had a friend a few years ago, really struggling. He was making $8.50 an hour, and wondered if he should take on a job, working nights, at $10.50. He was concerned it would impact his social life, but that he really could have used the extra money. I said, why not work both jobs, double your income, bust your ass for a couple of years, then drop one, and you'll feel like you're on a vacation the rest of your life!! He didn't, and, no surprise, he's still broke.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:10 AM5
"The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. "
No but it can sure help when, for whatever reason, there isn't enough Christian charity to go around. We have a democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people.
The people. People, people, people. People run this country. Human beings. When I give money to "the government" I'm giving it to some human beings that have been directly or indirectly elected by me because they are wise.
That's the theory.
If in fact it doesn't work that way, we might ask why.
For example, I'm curious why George Bush seems so much more interested in protecting privileged and fantastically wealthy people from losing any of their money, as opposed to preventing underprivileged dirt poor people from losing everything they own.
6
"Forbes magazine a few years ago did a study, what is the difference between the financially successful and the unsuccessful in America? Answer: it wasn't education, it wasn't parenting, it wasn't even income. It was hours worked in a week. Most successful people put in over 50 hours per week and, as most of them are self-employed, it is usually much higher than that when they first started their businesses."
Wow, what an incredibly misleading bunch of garbage!!!!
I work 50-60 hours a week but you can bet your sweet patootie I wouldn't do it if I wasn't paid to do it. And my job is somewhat interesting.
But 50-60 hours a week running a pepperoni slicer at the frozen pizza plant? I'd save up enough to buy me a gun and "retire," if you get my drift.
No offense to the automatic pepperoni slicers of the world who are working overtime, but I'm guessing very few of them are highly educated, very few of them have educated wealthy parents, and none of them are rich.
A dumb person could read between the lines and wonder if the Forbes article pretends to provide some "evidence" that most poor people in this country are poor because they aren't willing to work as hard as rich people.
A person with a working brain sees immediately that's what the article is trying to do.
Caveat: of course I didn't bother to read the article. It's 12:15 am, no link was provided and my wonderful job requires that I prepare for a meeting tomorrow morning.
7
I need to correct what I said above about my acquaintance. In truth, I haven't spoken to him for awhile, so I don't know whether he still has money problems or not. So I shouldn't have said "he's still broke", when I don't really know.
posted on 09.13.2005 2:17 AM8
Let me cheer you up, Larry, with something that will be deleted soon, I'm afraid:
A guy worked at a frozen pizza plant. And he came home to his wife one day and said, "honey, it's strange, but I have this temptation to stick my penis into the pepperoni slicer!" She said, well, that's strange, but it sounds dangerous.
A few nights later, he looked really bummed out, and avoided her. Finally she was able to ask him what was wrong.
Him: Well, remember when I told you I wanted to put my penis into the pepperoni slicer?
Her: Yeessss. Don't tell me you did!!
Him (embarrassed): Yes, I did. And I was caught on camera, with my penis in the pepperoni slicer.
Her: Well, what happened?
Him: We both got fired!
posted on 09.13.2005 2:23 AM9
Kevin W.
How much per capita?
And the larger issue is not "how much we spend on education," but how we spend it. Is that university tuition? Is that football helmets?
Is it testing for the sake of testing?
You probably catch my drift there.
These are public policy issues- please don't chane the subject by trying to shift the responsibility.
Or please don't make another false "lucky duckies" argument like the "Heritage" study that was debunked.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:08 AM10
Mumon:
How much per capita?
We outspend the world per student at least in elementary and secondary education.
And the larger issue is not "how much we spend on education," but how we spend it. Is that university tuition? Is that football helmets?
That's up to the community how the money is spent.
University tuition is going through the roof mainly because of two major factors. One the government got involved in loaning money so students could go which meant universities started charging more (the market can bear more.) Two, the scam of really needing a college education for most jobs. My mother did a job of rating policies at an insurance company for years. She only had a high school education. By the time she left, they were requiring a college degree. The result is increased demand.
I'm not an absolute defender of sports programs, but they do provide an education in skills not necessarily learned in a classroom. Also, at the college level, those football helmets usually pay for most of the other sports. Finally, I don't think Kevin W. was talking about college tuition in his statement.
Is it testing for the sake of testing?
Testing is an important component of evaluating education profiecency. When I was in H.S., I went to a smallish country school district. However, the district was still staffed with older teachers who never bought into the latest education fads, So, while the district never had money to waste, it used it well and we got a good education. We had a transfer come in one year from one of the better off suburbs of Columbus. Now this guy was an "A" student at his previous school. He barely got C's in our H.S. This is before statewide testing and the point is testing, while not perfect, at least provides a baseline of performance.
You probably catch my drift there.
I catch it and you're drifting towards the rocks again.
These are public policy issues- please don't chane the subject by trying to shift the responsibility.
Public education is a local, state, and personal responsibility. The federal government should really just stay out of it. I'll name the three most important components in education: students, parents, and teachers. Money is way down on the list. Here in Ohio several school districts sued the state over the funding formula. One paper did a study of the district leading the charge and two neighboring districts not involved in the lawsuit. The two neighboring districts had less money than the suing district and still outperformed the district that was suing.
11
"Who are these people? In America we call them “the poor.”
You're dodging the issue yet again. The poor are (really, stay with me now) people who can't eat regularly, go to the doctor, or (wait for it) jump in a car when the hurricane is coming.
Please address the real issue : poverty.
"Poverty of spirit" (your implied argument here) doesn't feed starving children while your masters give trillions of $ of tax-cuts to the "spritually poor".
posted on 09.13.2005 8:39 AM12
Larry Lord is such an amazing bigot. Amazing, because he apparently thinks he's not a bigot. Consider:
No offense to the automatic pepperoni slicers of the world who are working overtime, but I'm guessing very few of them are highly educated, very few of them have educated wealthy parents, and none of them are rich.
No offense, but much more offensive could you possibly be?
A dumb person [...] A person with a working brain [...]
Now that you have established your intellectual bona fides, you can have your gold star, Larry! Good boy! Now go back to whatever it is you do. We're all so proud of our smart, smart Larry.
Don't forget people, trolls need to be fed, too.
Mumon:
What, exactly, is "testing for the sake of testing"? Just curious.
Now to the topic, the poor... Sigh. Having been born in WV and growing up poor (yes, I recall JFK visiting our state in 1960 and bemoaning that it didn't look like the quad at Choate), and having friends who still do jobs that would drive Larry Lord to suicide (presumably because his brilliant, incisive mind would be less than fully engaged solving the most refractory social problems of the day), I also have some experience with poverty.
What mystifies me is why we haven't spent yet more money on programs like the War on Poverty. You know, for a few years there, poverty was eliminated by the left. Everybody was happy, crime dropped to virtually zero, no one was hungry or undernourished, families were intact, inmates left prisons with a committment to rebuild inner cities while singing Kumbaya, children were becoming more brilliant every day, work was satisfying and fulfilling for all, and peace and harmony reigned throughout every community in this country. This may have been the left's last idea, but it was a good one, and the only reasons it didn't work was that taxes were too low, rich people are too mean, and welfare checks should have been fatter.
Then Reagan got elected, instituted his program of national malaise, and all but ten people were impoverished. These ten were all gazillionaires defended by the special forces and frolicing on the dead, emaciated bodies of the poor.
Does the left ever look at actual data?
13
You tell 'em, Brother Joe. Don't let the crybabies get you down.
posted on 09.13.2005 8:55 AM14
The fact that the government has to have a “safety net” to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that Christians fail to do God’s work.
As a christian news reporter, who have visited and reported on a vast number of churches in the South, I agree with that statement. I would also like to add that a great of the poor in this country are children, who cannot work... who in many cases--here in Georgia-- only eat Mon-Friday, breakfast and lunch at their public schools. And that's a crying shame.
posted on 09.13.2005 9:36 AM15
The fact that the government has to have a “safety net” to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that Christians fail to do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps. The care of a community isn’t provided with government housing. The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher. What the poor need is not another government program but Christians who are willing to honor their savior.
Indeed but I don't think we should abolish the safety net. I'm willing to have faith in Christ but I'm not going to have faith that Christians in this country (or any other) are suddenly going to get their acts together.
The wealth argument is interesting from a religious perspective. What if the entire world became more or less equal to America's poor today? Would charity become impossible? I don't think so because I don't think charity really depends on there being poor people. Everyone at some point needs some help...whether it simply be encouragement, kindness, or even just asking if they are ok. Even in a 'perfect world' where we are all at least lower middle class there is still value in charity.
Going from 40 hours per week to 50 will for most people MORE THAN DOUBLE THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME. How is this? Because so much goes to cover living expenses, taxes, food, that there is only so much left over at the end of the month. Tack on an extra $600 a month, and invest that properly--gradually you become rich.
Indeed but you always have to be careful with these studies. Causation can run both ways. A successful person might be working 50 hours a week because they have found a great combination of jobs (or single good job) that is sensible to work extra hours at. On the flip side if you cannot find an easy way to combine jobs or grab a good single job then what does it cost you to choose to work 35 hours rather than 40 if you're hourly pay rate is low? Keep in mind more than a few low wage jobs will make you work less than 40 hours just to avoid even the slightest possibility you may accidentlyrack up an extra 15 minutes in the overtime range.
Another factor to consider is transaction costs. Working 50 hours a week at a single job is pretty easy...but in the low wage world this is very difficult since overtime is the first thing managers target with cost cutting operations. Adding a second job requires coordinating the two schedules, doubling transportation requirements and so on. I've pulled it off because my second jobs were tutoring (where I can set my own hours and poach customers from my primary employer!) and bookkeeping. So was I working 50-60 hour weeks because I was 'motivated' or because I had a good set of jobs that I could invest that time into? Or both?
It is always easy to assume other people are in their situation because they are stupid or lazy or simply less fine examples of the human species than you are. You should remember though that pride & arrogance is an easy trap to fall into. Often people who seem to be doing things that are stupid are behaving more rationally than you would think at first glance.
posted on 09.13.2005 10:12 AM16
When there's a world war between the haves and the have nots--guess which side the poor in our country will be on. They will be holding back the massed hordes coming at them from the four corners of the globe, yelling: "Wait, I'm on your side!! I'm poor, too!! Go after those really rich people over there!!"
The problem with poverty in America is not the poverty per se. It's the attitude of the person. We have too many poor in this country who are filled with envy, an envy that has become an acceptable vice in the Democrat party. How many times haven't we heard the phrase, "tax cuts for the rich?" That is a rallying cry for every envious person in America. It has become acceptable for liberals to be envious of and, in effect, to hate the rich.
After transferring trillions of dollars from the "rich" to the "poor", we still haven't spent enough according to liberals. How do we know we haven't spent enough? It's obvious because we still have tremendous poverty. It never seems to occur to them that this spending hasn't helped and that a very good argument can be made that it has done great harm to certain segments of society. In fact, throwing good money after bad is a good thing according to one evangelical pastor from the Common Grounds website.
At least give conservatives their due. Evil rich people know how to manage money. They believe government entitlement programs do not work. Who has more credibility in the debate over fiscal policy: evil rich conservatives, or the people who have their lives and livelihood invested in the last fourty years of the Great Society?
posted on 09.13.2005 10:12 AM17
At least give conservatives their due. Evil rich people know how to manage money. They believe government entitlement programs do not work. Who has more credibility in the debate over fiscal policy: evil rich conservatives, or the people who have their lives and livelihood invested in the last fourty years of the Great Society?
I dispute that rich people, evil or not, tend to know how to manage their money. As for credibility, 8 years of 'evil rich conservatives' has brought us more entitlement spending, broken budgets and fiscal insolvency.
posted on 09.13.2005 10:45 AM18
Did hurricane Katrina not show you the tragedy of poverty in this nation? The "haves" survive while the "have nots" drown or watch others die while sitting for days in their own feces.
How, with the faces of the victims who were lethally neglected in New Orleans, can you say that poverty is no big deal?
posted on 09.13.2005 10:56 AM19
Evil rich people know how to manage money.
You mean like MC Hammer;).
posted on 09.13.2005 10:57 AM20
"Did hurricane Katrina not show you the tragedy of poverty in this nation? The "haves" survive while the "have nots" drown or watch others die while sitting for days in their own feces.
How, with the faces of the victims who were lethally neglected in New Orleans, can you say that poverty is no big deal?"
It hasn't shown me the tragedy of poverty in this nation. It might but it hasn't yet.
So far from what ive seen lot's and lot's of poor people were killed in Hurricane Katrina in theory only, not in any actual sense. It makes a good news story for the MSM.
Last I read the gruesome body count was around 300 people (In LA) and ive seen no coorelation between dead bodies and income levels.
There has been a few stories out about the elderly who were left behind and died.
Perhaps we should be talking about that, instead of something for which we havn't seen any evidence for yet.
posted on 09.13.2005 11:15 AM21
It's not conservatives who are spending like drunken sailors. I don't know what these Republicans are, but they're not acting like conservatives. Don't blame conservatism for ever-increasing budgets.
Besides, Boonton, you liberals complaining about increasing spending is exactly the kind of maddening stupidity that typifies liberalism today. You complain about not spending enough on poverty and then you mock us for spending too much. How incredibly disingenous.
Where has anyone said that poverty is no big deal? The poor have-nots in New Orleans (no matter the reason for not getting out) can thank liberalism for everything they have. If there is a welfare state and a welfare city in this country it is Lousiana and New Orleans. They want to blame everyone (especially George Bush) but themselves for their plight. The fact is that Democrats have controlled Louisiana for many years. Why isn't it a model of a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage? Let me guess. We haven't spent enough. We don't care enough. We are racists and we hate poor people.
And, Boonton, I guess the evil rich got that way by inheriting it all, right? That's the typical liberal mantra. They couldn't be just a little more ambitious, maybe a little smarter, a little kinder, a little more interested in the next big idea, a little more frugal, a little more...you name it. No, they got that way by inheriting and hoarding. Certainly not by being wiser with money.
Incredible.
posted on 09.13.2005 11:25 AM22
jd,
I know plenty of rich people. Some of them got rich by working hard. Some got rich by inheriting it. Some got rich by playing the stock market. Some got rich by managing their money really well. And yes, some are just lucky.
There is no single formula.
Likewise, there is no single reason why people are poor. Some are poor because they are lazy. Some because they don't want to be tied down and are happy doing odd jobs. Some are the victims of misfortune. Some are poor because they make bad decisions. Some are poor because they had children in high school.
posted on 09.13.2005 12:00 PM23
It's not conservatives who are spending like drunken sailors. I don't know what these Republicans are, but they're not acting like conservatives. Don't blame conservatism for ever-increasing budgets.
Ok, then who to blame? I mean we have a Republican President who says he is conservative. We have a congress that mostly identifies themselves as conservative. We have conservative press (Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox pundits etc.) who defend them with just about every breath they take. Exactly how many more chances should we give conservatives to be conservative? This is starting to sound like the 'real communism' line...that was when defenders of communism would say 'you can't look at the USSR as an example of what it is like, they aren't true communists there'...ditto for China, Vietnam, N. Korea and so on. Who exactly would be a 'real conservative' to elect if not people like Bush and Lott?
Where has anyone said that poverty is no big deal? The poor have-nots in New Orleans (no matter the reason for not getting out) can thank liberalism for everything they have. If there is a welfare state and a welfare city in this country it is Lousiana and New Orleans.
Anything to back that up? I wasn't aware that New Orleans was known for particularly generous welfare payment or Lousiana was known as particularly liberal. Bush, for example, won the state with 57% of the vote in 2004 and with 52% in 2000. Their Democratic governor won because the Republicans ran a young neophyt against her, before 2004 they had not had a Democratic governor since 1995. They have one Republican and one Democratic Senators and 4 out of 6 of their Representatives are Republican.
I'm not sure if Republicans control the state house or not (it's surprisingly hard to find that information on Google!) but it certainly seems they have more than a fair chance to effect Louisiana's policy.
And, Boonton, I guess the evil rich got that way by inheriting it all, right? That's the typical liberal mantra...
errr, is it? Ok, I don't recall saying that. Are you able to only have discussions with straw men?
posted on 09.13.2005 12:16 PM24
This point came up on a previous thread about idoltry where Joe worried that some people were making gov't into a diety. I think the problem is more Bush supporters who have turned him into some type of diety for whom no criticism is permitted.
posted on 09.13.2005 12:42 PM25
Boonton,
I've actually read that before. Absolute adherence to right-wing ideology, rigid and inflexible, has often been compared to a religious cult. Turning the leader into a deity is one of a cult's elements, so is forbidding criticism.
Just an FYI.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:04 PM26
Joe:
My father was born poor, too. When he was born (the last of fifteen with step-siblings and half-siblings), his father had just died at the age of 43, and his mother had six dollars. They had to sell their family farm because they couldn't make it. They moved into a very small house in my hometown, a house which was just down the street from where I grew up. I didn't know about any of this until I was much older. My dad didn't know he was poor until he overheard some people (probably kids) saying, "How would you like to live in a house like that?" They were talking about his house.
But he made it, became a successful businessman and proceeded to die at 46, just like his dad. Life's a crock, sometimes isn't it?
Anyway, the point is that poverty is so much about attitude. The poor in this country have no idea what it means to be truly poor. There is probably less of a divide between our poor and our rich, than there is between our poor and their poor. It's the attitude of our poor that is truly disheartening: the idea that it's someone else's responsibility to fix the problem. And puhleeze, before someone tells me that I'm over-generalizing about who the poor are and how they got that way, that's a given, alright? How about you grant me the point that many of the poor don't stay that way? The rolls of those who have gotten off the dole in recent years have increased. There is not some monolithic group of people who are forever and always poor.
Except one, and that is the small percentage of poor who have been dependent on government assistance for about three generations and who have a disproportionate amount of influence on our culture through crime and unwed motherhood.
The degradation of certain elements in our culture goes way beyond poverty.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:04 PM27
Actually, it's the evil rich Democrats who got that way by inheritance (think Kennedy, or Kerry, who married it) ;->
Now that I've got that flame off my chest...Biblical covenants (whether or not one subscribes to their precepts) teach that wealth is meant to be outward evidence of keeping covenant, i.e., material wealth is meant signify spiritual wealth. This is diametrically opposite to both the evil Michael Dougles "Wall Street" character who proclaimed "greed is good," and the foodstamp recipient who somehow manages to buy lottery tickets. One has no pretense of character, while the other is blind to the connection.
FWIW, I agree with Joe's post (no surprise), and some insights provided by others, including Mumon (big surprise). But there's one statement from Mumon that must be excepted:
why do you think the social welfare was put into place in the first place? It's because "charity" couldn't do it.
Actually charity could do it quite well, but Christians dropped the ball in the 1900s because they WOULDN'T do it, as exemplified by dropping the tithe (thanks especially to the spurious teachings of one Cyrus Scofield, who falsely dichomotized the two Testaments). By the time Woodrow Wilson took office, the church had dropped the ball so badly that he began viewing civil government as a potential agency for good, rather than merely an instrument to restrain evil (the traditional view). The ensuing "voluntary" one percent tax on the wealthiest Americans grew to a confiscatory rate (something like 77 percent) within less than a decade, before being curtailed from catastrophic curse to mere curse.
The point, Mumon, is that charity could have done it, since believers are mandated in that regard, while civil government almost immediately showed it could not do what it was not designed to do.
Sadly, the cure for incompetent civil government was--and still is--MORE civil government.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:05 PM28
My personal opinion is becasue, since Bush I, Rovian political strategy has confused conservativism with liberalism. To vote liberal is to be unclean, and it is a sacrifice of spirituality.
The irony is, many of Jesus' teachings are very liberal (by modern definition).
posted on 09.13.2005 1:07 PM29
I mis-wrote above. I meant to say:
"confused conservatism with religion."
sorry.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:08 PM30
Hmmmm. I guess the LA government and the N.O. government handled things very well, then. Yes? Or, no wish to talk about that for goodness sake, they are run by Ds, and I musn't bash them. Give me a break.
Here's the deal. And Larry, no link on this, cuz' you're so smart, I know you don't need one. If a person in our country finishes high school, stays out of jail, and does not impregnate another, or become pregnant out of wedlock, they have an overwhelming chance of living at least a middle-class life-style.
As Bruce Hornsby says, "that's just the way it is."
Oh, and Larry, now is the time for you to interject something about homosexuality..it's really been too long..
posted on 09.13.2005 1:12 PM31
"Except one, and that is the small percentage of poor who have been dependent on government assistance for about three generations and who have a disproportionate amount of influence on our culture through crime and unwed motherhood. The degradation of certain elements in our culture goes way beyond poverty."
Okay, Colonel Kurtz: what's your plan?
posted on 09.13.2005 1:24 PM32
George called me a bigot and claimed I was being offensive when I wrote:
"No offense to the automatic pepperoni slicers of the world who are working overtime, but I'm guessing very few of them are highly educated, very few of them have educated wealthy parents, and none of them are rich."
Someone tell me: how is this bigoted? Who is offended? And why?
posted on 09.13.2005 1:27 PM33
300 people (as of now) have died. Doctors were euthanizing patients. Entire hospices are filled with bodies. Because George Bush and his incompetent upper-level government did not bother to at least read a newspaper, people were stranded for days. Starvation led to desperation, “looting”, lawlessness, thirst,
A tad over wrought, aren't we? People were stranded for days because George Bush didn't (or couldn't?) read a newspaper? Could it really be that people were stranded for a couple of days because a large group of people at the state and local level didn't take Katrina seriously and failed to take appropriate action, like ordering NO evacuated or at least pre-postitioning food and water at the designated shelters? I suppose an argument could be made that FEMA should have done that, but the problem is that the Feds have to be prepared to respond where needed. Suppose FEMA has pre-positioned food and supplies in NO and then NO didn't get hit? Then you have a bunch of critical supplies in a spot where they are not needed and not where they are needed. FEMA doesn't have enough resources to pre-position adequate resources at every potential site that could have been hit by Katrina.
This is not a tragedy? Do you have a conscience?
A conscience would imply that Eric&Lisa or JD should feel guilty for a hurricane hitting NO. As to whether or not it is a tragedy, obviously it is, but as to whether the tragedy was caused by poverty or poor-planning is open to debate. Not to be callous, but over 100 people die every day in traffic accidents (2004 NHTSA numbers are 116 per day). Is that a tragedy? Yes. Do I feel bad for those people and their families? Yes. Do I cry myself to sleep every night because of it? No, and I didn't shed any tears of Katrina, though I did write a large check and would have signed up as a Red Cross volunteer had they not required a 3-week committment (two toddlers make 3 weeks unrealistic)
Eric, Lisa, and JD suffer from what most rabid republicans suffer from, a tacit inability to empathize on a human level with anyone but themselves.
I believe the clinical term for this is "narcissism." BTW--Where did you do your clinical training. Must be pretty good school for you to be able to diagnose Eric&Lisa and JD, as well as "most rabid republicans" based on a couple of posts on a blog.
It’s the poor’s fault for being poor and for staying in N.O. because they are lazy.
Are you implying that it's not the poor's fault they are poor? Who's fault is it? To a large extent, the chronically poor share several characteristics. First they drop out of high school, second they have children out of wedlock, and third they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. All these characteristics are voluntary. So again, whose fault is it?
They cannot possibly comprehend that circumstances completely independent of personal character can destroy. Ever had a loved one get very sick? Ever given birth to a disabled child? Ever lost your job?
So Eric&Lisa and JD (as well as the rest of us "rabid republicans") are just one job loss or loved one getting sick away from being murderous thugs, stealing and raping their way through the SuperDome. I am sure they will be surprised to hear that.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:31 PM34
jd
"If there is a welfare state and a welfare city in this country it is Lousiana and New Orleans."
Are you sure it's not the farmers who are paid by the government not to plant crops on their land?
Also, jd, please tell us: does the fact that a majority of the poorest people in this country are Southern blacks have anything to do with the fact that until fairly recently an apartheid system was operating in the Southern US?
I also recall something about the South and the Civil War and blacks being slaves.
COuld that be related?
Was that slavery thing a part of God's plan? If so, what do you suppose was God's point?
Does the Bible say something about how to treat a group of people who were enslaved and discrimianted against for hundreds of years after they are freed?
Your honest answers are appreciated. I'm inclined to believe you're extraordinarily naive and possibly harboring some strange bigoted views about African-Americans, views that are likely reinforced by morally broken individuals such as Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio scum.
Prove me wrong.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:37 PM35
ucfengr
"So Eric&Lisa and JD (as well as the rest of us "rabid republicans") are just one job loss or loved one getting sick away from being murderous thugs, stealing and raping their way through the SuperDome."
So much straw.
Such a little man.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:38 PM36
Larry,
Are you a morally broken individual? I'm just asking, because I am, and I'm wondering if you can help me out? Since you've got it all figured out, the whole righteousness thing...what's your secret? That life of perfection you're living..it's awesome...you could be the messiah---just have to get over that little atheistic hump..
37
does the fact that a majority of the poorest people in this country are Southern blacks
And the source for this fact is?
So much straw.
Such a little man.
Ah, the ubiquitous Larry Lord and his Witless Reparte'. Larry will be at the Tropicana all week with more of his plunger-sharp wit.
posted on 09.13.2005 1:47 PM38
It's interesting how I post a rather innocuous article about the relationship between hours worked and financial success, and get beat up for it. But this transcends class: a middle-class person who works harder thank another middle-class person will make more. Why is that so hard to get? Why make excuses like, "well, yeah, but what about traveling to your other job?", or "businessmen are always looking to keep laborers at under 40 hours a week."
So?
It should be an embarrassment to the excuse-peddlers that people can step off of boats, with no command of English, and just a few hundred dollars in their pockets, and rise to middle-class in half a generation in the richest country in the world.
Why is that?
posted on 09.13.2005 2:04 PM39
*sigh*
Listen, listen carefully, because once you absorb this you might have to re-think your attitudes on tax policy and government social programs. There are voluntary and involuntary reasons for poverty. Some groups are stuck in a cycle of poverty that is almost impossible to escape, no matter how much your super-human willpower you exercise. This is a good reference:
http://www.jcpr.org/newsletters/vol6_no3/index.html
It takes a little time and, for you, it will take a paradigm shift about how you feel about people less fortunate than you. Ask jd, it seems like he (or she) would understand that circumstances that shackle people to poverty, especially with two toddlers.
Bush said he read the paper and it said N.O. was just fine after the hurricane. M. Brown did not know thousands of people were starving in the SuperDome until the media told him. The Governor and Mayor spent days begging for help. There was a government (oceanographic center) that said this storm would bring human suffering of a magnitude not seen in modern times. The Feds did not respond BECAUSE the leadership did not read the damn paper. It is an absolute cause-and-effect.
There is no debate that the Feds failed, lethally. The only debate about this is among right-wing zealots who either don’t watch news outside of Fox or do watch it and completely ignore what they see. No one is denying the responsibility of the city and state officials (although I take issue with how you say they failed – I’ll tell you how if you’d like), but if my city gets hit by a terrorist nuke, I’m not going to depend on the Mayor of New Orleans to save me from death.
And, to be sure, Bush just took responsibility for a delayed response.
The Fed’s dropped the ball, through incompetence and cronyism. The entire republican agenda, from supply-side economics and Rovian dishonest political tactics, to it’s conflation with religion, is under indictment. We have seen the catastrophic effects of replacing facts, science, and principled public and foreign policy with unsupportable ideology and pandering to the rich. Your people with your policies FAILED us. They failed big time. It’s disgusting. My life and my family’s life is at stake, it’s time to let the grownups take over.
40
Hate to be Rodney King aboujt this, but geez, between Rob B on one side and Larry Lord on the other, can't we all just stop the flame-throwing a little and get along? Everybody in this comment section, far as I can tell, is dry and has an intact home. So why keep trying to one-up one another?
Why not make the discussion a bit more civil? Or is this what we have instead of lives?
posted on 09.13.2005 2:32 PM42
A tad over wrought, aren't we? People were stranded for days because George Bush didn't (or couldn't?) read a newspaper? Could it really be that people were stranded for a couple of days because a large group of people at the state and local level didn't take Katrina seriously and failed to take appropriate action, like ordering NO evacuated or at least pre-postitioning food and water at the designated shelters? I suppose an argument could be made that FEMA should have done that, but the problem is that the Feds have to be prepared to respond where needed. Suppose FEMA has pre-positioned food and supplies in NO and then NO didn't get hit? Then you have a bunch of critical supplies in a spot where they are not needed and not where they are needed. FEMA doesn't have enough resources to pre-position adequate resources at every potential site that could have been hit by Katrina.
Perhaps we should be thankful that Bush-god appointed a political hack to head FEMA rather than someone with actual experience in emergancy management. Imagine the wasted 'prepositioned food' that could have happened had Bush-god taken the agency seriously.
BTW, I seem to recall that we have been spending billions of dollars on something called the Department of Homeland Security. Not a few of those dollars went for all types of planning about the consquences of a terrorist setting off a 'dirty bomb' that would require the quick evaculation of thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of people. Their web site says their mission is to establish seemless coordination between local, state and federal responders to an emergancy, natural or terrorist. They are supposed to formulate procedures and protocols. If the result we have seen in the last few weeks an indication of quality from this new beauracy installed by a conservative president and congress?
posted on 09.13.2005 2:37 PM43
It's interesting how I post a rather innocuous article about the relationship between hours worked and financial success, and get beat up for it. But this transcends class: a middle-class person who works harder thank another middle-class person will make more. Why is that so hard to get? Why make excuses like, "well, yeah, but what about traveling to your other job?", or "businessmen are always looking to keep laborers at under 40 hours a week."
I simply noted that you have to careful about assuming the direction of causation. There's nothing wrong with working 50 hours a week or two jobs if that is what's good for you. I simply pointed out for some people this does not make sense for valid reasons. Now you assumed that success is caused by people working additional hours. This may or may not be true. No doubt there are many cases where success causes people to work additional hours.
posted on 09.13.2005 2:40 PM44
No, I'm in New York, I should have clarified that.
posted on 09.13.2005 2:41 PM45
Five of Diamonds, thanks for the clarification. And in light of that fact, would you please take a more civil, less sarcastic tone. There's no need for Right or Left to pronounce the other stupid. I am not thin-skinned in the least, and often fight the temptation to wax poetic with invective towards some of the more sarcastic contributors here. But that would render my posts pointless.
Comment sections make their participants think through their opinions, but hardly ever change them. So please lighten up already.
I know this forum is Joe's to police, but this has become a bit of a catfight. Why not keep it pleasant?
posted on 09.13.2005 2:58 PM46
Listen, listen carefully, because once you absorb this you might have to re-think your attitudes on tax policy and government social programs.
Oh, would you please, most enlightened one, explain to me my attitude on tax policy and governmental social programs? I am sure you have a much better grasp of it than I after reading one or two of my blog comments.
Bush said he read the paper and it said N.O. was just fine after the hurricane.
Right after Katrina, all I remember hearing was how NO dodged a bullet. It was only later, after the levees broke that things went to hell, and later still when folks realized how bad it was.
M. Brown did not know thousands of people were starving in the SuperDome until the media told him.
Brown and FEMA did not order thousands of people to the Super Dome without properly planning for their care. As to this starving meme, 3 days with mimimal food does not starvation make, and again if the city and/or state had either ordered NO evacuated or pre-positioned stores at their designated shelters this problem would have been significant reduced.
The Governor and Mayor spent days begging for help.
The President declared the entire Gulf Coast in danger from Katrina Federal Disaster Areas 2 days before the hurricane hit. That was when the state and city should have started preparing for the worst, but they did almost nothing. Should he (Bush) have declared martial law (and removed these imcompetents from their posts) as well? After the hurricane hit, I10 was pretty much shut down for days. What did they expect, Bush to use his top-secret matter transporters salvaged from the Area 51 site?
There was a government (oceanographic center) that said this storm would bring human suffering of a magnitude not seen in modern times. The Feds did not respond BECAUSE the leadership did not read the damn paper.
I can tell that you have never worked in government and have absolutely no clue how many "white papers", position papers, and PowerPoint presentations there are on any given subject, many of which contradict other papers. To blame Bush for not reading one paper out of the millions government produces every year is a bit much, but cerainly expected from a "rabid Bush hater."
There is no debate that the Feds failed, lethally. The only debate about this is among right-wing zealots who either don’t watch news outside of Fox or do watch it and completely ignore what they see.
Oh, so only "right wing zealots" think the Feds did a decent job? What are you, a member of the "Larry Lord Fan Club"?
*sigh*
I couldn't agree more.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:01 PM47
Perhaps it is better to recall that this thread began about the Christian duty to charity. QUESTION: If poverty can ben solved by getting poor people to 'behave better' (go to school, work longer hours, get married before having kids and so on), then does that eliminate the Christian duty to charity????
posted on 09.13.2005 3:03 PM48
Perhaps we should be thankful that Bush-god
This is amusing, because it is your side that seems to imbue Bush with supernatural powers. You know the power to rescue 100,000 people with a single Black Hawk helicopter, and to redirect hurricanes so that they only hit only Democratic areas. Many, if not most on the right know that Bush is all too human.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:05 PM49
So, let's see here:
- Federal, state, and local officials had a disaster plan which included the evacuation of NO. Nagin and Blanco seemed to have forgotten the plan completely
- Bush asks and finally gets the mayor to declare an evacuation two before the hurricaine hits, but doesn't make it mandatory until Sunday
- Nagin positioned no supplies at the Superdome or convention center.
- During this evacuation, over 200 school buses sit in a parking lot unused. The plan was supposed to use them to get out the poor.
- Approximately 30% of the police force of NO deserted during Katrina.
- Nagin sent 60% of the police force on a paid trip to Vegas one week after the hurricaine.
- Blanco prevented the Red Cross from sending supplies to the Superdome before and after Katrina (remember the levees didn't break until the next day.
- Blanco didn't authorize using school buses to evacuate people until Wednesday.
- The Federal gov't cannot walk into a state and take over until officially (i.e. signing the appropriate documents) asking. TV cries for help, are not official. If you don't understand why, then you need to read the Constitution.
- Yep, Brown at FEMA deserved to get booted. Not finding out about the Superdome was stupidity.
- Rampant lawlessness was what happened in NO. It was not some minor looting with people looking for food. Eighty NO police officers would not enter the SuperDome due to the lawlessness.
- LA receives the largest amount to Federal Army Corp. of Engineer funds.
I would say the main failure here is local and state. Trying to blame Bush for things out of his control is political posturing. Does FEMA need fixed? Yes. However FEMA's failures are not the main failures here.
BTW, is anyone here getting tired of being called a racist? I'm personally sick of it.
50
Boonton:
If poverty can ben solved by getting poor people to 'behave better' (go to school, work longer hours, get married before having kids and so on), then does that eliminate the Christian duty to charity????
You'll always have the poor. Some people due to their situation are not able to work. So, there is always a need for Christian charity. I think the question revolves around, how do you handle those who are poor due to continually making poor decisions and/or are unwilling to work.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:09 PM51
Perhaps one reason for the intractable differences between Right and Left is that the Left as a first resort invariably looks upward to the federal level for solutions or to cast blame, while the Right first looks downward to the local level, with upward appeals.
Katrina caused collapse at all levels, of course, but as one on the Right I'm inclined to agree with Chris Lutz' assessment.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:24 PM52
This is amusing, because it is your side that seems to imbue Bush with supernatural powers. You know the power to rescue 100,000 people with a single Black Hawk helicopter, and to redirect hurricanes so that they only hit only Democratic areas. Many, if not most on the right know that Bush is all too human.
No the modern Republican theology is to attribute supernatural destructive powers to not worshipping the Bush-god enough. For example, the idea that has been propsed on this very thread that LO has suffered so much because they are too liberal (yes they gave Bush 57% last election, 51% before that, gave the GOP one out of two Senators etc. but that's not sufficient!).
- Federal, state, and local officials had a disaster plan which included the evacuation of NO. Nagin and Blanco seemed to have forgotten the plan completely
Indeed, so did the Federal gov't. Where's the plan? Why weren't the Federal officials screaming about NO not following the plan?
Blanco didn't authorize using school buses to evacuate people until Wednesday.
Were these buses part of this plan? Who were the planned bus drivers? Were they notified that they were part of a plan? Considering that the Superdom was packed to capacity where did the plan call for these buses to evacuate the people to before the storm hit?
I would say the main failure here is local and state. Trying to blame Bush for things out of his control is political posturing. Does FEMA need fixed? Yes. However FEMA's failures are not the main failures here.
Bush doesn't control FEMA? FEMA had an excellent reputation under Clinton, it appears to have deteroriated under Bush. That is especially bad since 9/11 brought home the lesson that the mainland US needed diaster management...if anything FEMA should have been improved since 9/11. It was, after all, considered important enough to be put into the newly created Department of Homeland Security.
The failure of local and state officials in NO is a valid concern however considering that we have been spending billions supposedly preparing for a major diaster hitting the US it is a legitimate question why person leading the Fed. gov't failed to do what he promised to do. There's lots of state and local governments in the US. Is NO the only one that has problems? If NO was so poorly equiped should the DOHS been warning us that NO was not up to par the way the EPA tells us which states have better air quality than others? What exactly are we getting for our money?
Perhaps one reason for the intractable differences between Right and Left is that the Left as a first resort invariably looks upward to the federal level for solutions or to cast blame, while the Right first looks downward to the local level, with upward appeals.
Except the Right spent upwards making this all part of Homeland Security, managed by the Federal Gov't. It seems the big difference is the Right is trying to take credit for everything good and divert blame for the bad no matter what the cost.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:36 PM53
Boonton, you're exactly right: Washington Republicans, once they took control of Congress, started spending like the Democrats they'd howled about for two generations. In fact, much as I admire Bush II in some respects, he's way too much like a Woodrow Wilson in seeing the federal government as a dispenser of largess.
I settled my angst about Bush five years ago when I decided he must be the finest Democrat in D.C.
posted on 09.13.2005 3:46 PM54
jim G
"the Right first looks downward to the local level, with upward appeals."
The Right looks wherever Karl Rove tells them to look.
That was what was so interesting about Katrina, which definitely caught li'l vacationing Bush, his lying "wife" Condi, and his cronies in FEMA off guard -- not to mention Fat Axxhole Rove.
There was a few days at least where the Right couldn't get their bogus stories straight.
Or did you forget that already, Jim?
posted on 09.13.2005 3:56 PM55
ucfengr, always struggling, asks
re --- the fact that a majority of the poorest people in this country are Southern blacks ---
And the source for this fact is?"
Put two and two together, ucfengr.
For once.
If you doubt me, prove me wrong.
If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it. A key point.
56
Kevin W
"It should be an embarrassment to the excuse-peddlers that people can step off of boats, with no command of English, and just a few hundred dollars in their pockets, and rise to middle-class in half a generation in the richest country in the world. Why is that?"
Well some of those people are in my family so I can tell you: they are smart, their parents were smart and brought them up responsibility, and they got a fine education in their previous country.
Ignorant people who haven't been blessed in this way and who do not speak English when they arrive do not tend to rise up to the middle class in half a generation.
The question for you, Kevin W (and it's you who keeps making excuses for your bizarre claims) is how do you think our society should treat this people?
Should we, as a country, give them any kind of safety net?
Or should we just say "Oh well, it's a dog eat dog world and if you can't take it then you might as well go crawl in a hole and die but, hey, there are other countries where it's worse and at least you're not a slave."
Or should we just step aside and let the evangelical Christians do their "charity" thing.
57
Boonton:
Why, oh why, are you perpetually tasked to spin ridiculous points? You're probably a nice guy. Why did Howard Dean give you the idiot's task instead of Larry Lord, who is obviously more qualified?
Yes, Boon, there are probably (A) guys for whom success is caused by working more hours. And there are some (B) guys whose working more hours is caused by their success. And some (C) guys' success is wholly unrelated to the number of hours they work. But Boon, in the category of people we are talking about - i.e., those who are in, rising from, or just getting out of poverty - we have eliminated the already successful (B)/(C) guys! See how that works! Ain't statistics wunnerful!
And in answer to your gratuitous question, let me offer the following...
If poverty can be solved...
Man, what a dim-bulb place to start. Poverty can't be solved. But it rhetorically sets up the question for you in a rather nicely, doesn't it? Worked in the dorm, eh?
does that eliminate the Christian duty to charity?
Your question seems to assume, as the left habitually does, that charity and money are fungible terms. Well, Boon, charity can and often does involve money. But suppose that King Midas had just inadvertently turned his daughter to gold. Would he not deserve charity in his grief? A good synonym for charity might be benevolence. What am I saying?? Benevolence is all about money to the left, too. Let me put it like this... a kind word, a genuine expression of empathy, sharing grief, joy, and disappointment - not because you're my friend or relative - just because you are a child of God and need it. That's charity too, and your $$$$ can't buy it. Suppose we were all as rich as Bill Gates. If the words of the left are to be believed, apparently the need for human charity would disappear. To Christians, charity and money are not fungible. On the left, you seem to prefer hiring out your empathy and caring. Social workers, shrinks, professional empaths. You guys don't really like to get your hands dirty around those people, do you? When was the last time you visited someone in jail, or the ghetto? Hmmmm?
It's all about money to you guys. Money, money, money. Who's got it, who don't, and who gets the right to take it from Peter to pay Paul.
posted on 09.13.2005 4:10 PM58
Larry Lord: This is the last response to a comment you'll ever get from me. You simply won't exist. If only others would treat you the same...
posted on 09.13.2005 4:11 PM59
ucfengr
"Oh, so only "right wing zealots" think the Feds did a decent job?"
Hilarious. Is this the part where ucfengr "reveals" the shocking news that he is a libertarian?
posted on 09.13.2005 4:11 PM60
Boonton:
The failure of local and state officials in NO is a valid concern however considering that we have been spending billions supposedly preparing for a major diaster hitting the US it is a legitimate question why person leading the Fed. gov't failed to do what he promised to do.
If you look at it, a lot of the money that has been spent goes to local and state governments. It is always going to take the Feds. 48-72 hours to get any major support to the area.
Part of the slow response was due to the rampant lawlessness in NO. When helicopters can't land and boats can't rescue people due to snipers and mobs, the response is going to be slower.
Why weren't the Federal officials screaming about NO not following the plan?
They have but they're spending most of their time combating cries of racism and negligent homicide.
Were these buses part of this plan?
Buses were part of the original evacuation plan. The point about Blanco though is she was complaining for at least a full day before that they needed to evacuate people and didn't take action herself to see that happen until later.
Considering that the Superdom was packed to capacity where did the plan call for these buses to evacuate the people to before the storm hit?
The Red Cross was already setting up shelters. I'm sure the state could have quickly set up others. It's a lot easier to provision a shelter outside of a disaster area than in one.
Except the Right spent upwards making this all part of Homeland Security, managed by the Federal Gov't.
Bush was lukewarm with the DHS idea to start with. Congress really pushed it and the Democrats pounded him about it. Now, it's a huge bureacracy and the Dems are mad about that and Congress is looking for scapegoats. You can't have it both ways.
Bush doesn't control FEMA?
Yes he does and FEMA has things it needs to answer for. However, it was not FEMA's job to evacuate NO, maintain order, properly provision shelters in the city, or provide some semblance of leadership at the local level.
FEMA had an excellent reputation under Clinton,...
Yes, but it also never dealt with anything this large.
I'm not saying Bush is blameless. However, most of this falls to the local and state governments.
posted on 09.13.2005 4:14 PM61
"You guys don't really like to get your hands dirty around those people, do you? When was the last time you visited someone in jail, or the ghetto? Hmmmm?"
I just take public transportation to and from work and see plenty of "those people" on the train or near the station.
And let me tell you something very unsurprising: the Republicans in my office are the people most likely to avoid the train at all costs.
Why is that? Do you suppose they would be more liable to take the train if all things were equal but the train was run by a Christian charity instead of a public entity?
Perhaps they think by driving their SUVs around they are supporting the hard working Americans who built them.
Yeah, that's it. Sure.
posted on 09.13.2005 4:18 PM62
"Part of the slow response was due to the rampant lawlessness in NO. When helicopters can't land and boats can't rescue people due to snipers and mobs, the response is going to be slower."
Oh, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!!!!!!
I guess we used up all our country's heroism blowing up Iraqis.
posted on 09.13.2005 4:20 PM63
I'm wandering off-topic here, but I live on the Gulf Coast, about 75 minutes from NO, and until two weeks ago would go there 2x per week on business.
The idea that someone can just snap his fingers and have thousands of trucks rolling into these areas is a fantasy. Can the bridges support the load weights of cars? Of heavy trucks? Of trains? How will the authorities communicate with no land lines (even cell phones are ultimately land-based--when the regular phone lines go down, so do almost all cells)? How do you clear the roads of power lines, when the storm is still going on, and the water has not receded?
Answer==you can't. This is not a tornado, or the World Trade Center. 90,000 square miles were badly damaged, with impassable roads, heavy rains and flooding, and no power. An area larger than Kansas, or of Great Britain. After Hurricane Andrew and Hugo, it took nearly a week for the first federal aid to arrive. In New Orleans, using only one main bridge (Lake Ponchartrain Causeway--the US 90 Bridge was totally destroyed, and the I-10 bridge was severely damaged and is still not open), the feds arrived within 36 hours.
That's actually not bad. Imagine if it had hit New York, and the entire area from NYC to Albany had been smashed, and people in lower Manhattan had to wait 36 hours for help. And the fact of the matter is, FEMA is not a rescue organization--they are responsible for directing federal help at the behest of the "first responders"; that is, local officials.
Let's please not hear any talk about how Bush cut the funding for the levees. The levees that broke were already finished.
Now, the federal response left a lot to be desired. But the response of the local and state authorities were, in my opinion, criminally negligent.
posted on 09.13.2005 4:36 PM64
Another thing that annoys me here, is the race card that's being played. "If the Lower Parishes were mainly white, you can better believe the President would have moved more quickly . . " blah blah blah.
For your information, there are entire communities in Plaquemines Parish that still haven't even been heard from. Downtown New Orleans has power back on, but the white Mississippi areas are still waiting.
Here's the lesson: if you're going to wait out a hurricane, that's your prerogative. If you live on a beach or sit below sea level, I personally don't find it especially bright, having been through more than 10 now. But at least take the responsibility of buying some bottled water, filling up all your bathtubs with water and Gatorade, and having a few days' worth of granola bars, fig newtons, chips, canned meats and tuna. All in all, about twenty dollars worth of stuff that you probably have anyway. I'm even willing to give the NO people a pass here--obviously they live in a crummy neighborhood, and they might be afraid to leave their homes because it might be looted upon their return, and, quite obviously, the police department is completely worthless. But to be nearly dying of thirst after two days, I can't excuse. That's blame I don't mind putting squarely on the people who stayed.
posted on 09.13.2005 4:45 PM65
OK--I mean to say, buy some bottled water and Gatorade, and fill up your bathtubs with water.
NOT
Buy some bottled water, and fill up your bathtubs with water and Gatorade.
:)
posted on 09.13.2005 4:46 PM66
Put two and two together, ucfengr.
For once.
If you doubt me, prove me wrong.
If you prove me wrong, I'll admit it. A key point.
You make unsupported assertions based on nothing but your own bigotry (what, Southern Blacks can't cut it in the US, is it genetic or cultural, Larry?) and I have to prove you wrong? Ha ha ha. Folks, once again the unsinkable Larry Lord. He'll be here all week making more inane, unsupported comments, don't forget to tip your servers.
67
George:
What, exactly, is "testing for the sake of testing"?
There is, apparently thanks to "No Child Left Behind," and state versions of it, an overabundance of tests in school today, which "test" for knowledge of some fact or other, but do not actually determine what sort of thought process is going on in our childrens' minds.
You know, for a few years there, poverty was eliminated by the left. Everybody was happy, crime dropped to virtually zero, no one was hungry or undernourished, families were intact, inmates left prisons with a committment to rebuild inner cities while singing Kumbaya, children were becoming more brilliant every day, work was satisfying and fulfilling for all, and peace and harmony reigned throughout every community in this country.
Well, maybe you don't remember it, or you didn't see it, but in the 80's and late 70's (Carter again),when poverty funds were cut there was a massive, noticable increase in homelessness and crime on the streets of New York; I remember that clearly.
Were mistakes made in the War on Poverty? You bet. Were the poors' lives improved? Yes.
When Reagan was elected president, real take home income for all but the richest Americans decreased. My taxes went up (personally), and pay roll taxes went up, up up.
That's the facts, not something Rush Limbaugh told you.
Incidentally, you might not believe this, but if you're not among the richest 2% today, you sir, pay more in income and payroll taxes than someone in the same income bracket would have done in 1969.
That's also a fact (look that one up on taxpolicy.org).
Deductions used to be for everyone, not just the mortage one.
Reagan's tax rise on eliminating most deductions (we used to be able to deduct medicine no matter how little, for example) affected many Americans.
George, when a Republican says he's going to lower your taxes hold on to your pocketbook.
Chris Lutz:
Public education is a local, state, and personal responsibility. The federal government should really just stay out of it.
Ummm... why? Because then there'll be the ability for poorer states to catch up?
We outspend the world per student at least in elementary and secondary education.
Source?
Jim Gilbert:
Actually charity could do it quite well, but Christians dropped the ball in the 1900s because they WOULDN'T do it, as exemplified by dropping the tithe...
I would recommend you read the book "The Gangs of New York" from which the movie was based very, very loosely; it's a history of the gangs in the slums in New York in the early 19th century.
No, people didn't suddenly get massively poor in the 20th century; there was this industrial revolution thingy that diverted wealth from the many to the few.
Of course you could also say in the US the Communists dropped the ball too; their charity was actually quite substantial, but not enough, judging from Thomas Merton's statements in The Seven Storey Mountain.
But I think, again that's an irrelevance.
posted on 09.13.2005 5:14 PM68
"You make unsupported assertions based on nothing but your own bigotry (what, Southern Blacks can't cut it in the US, is it genetic or cultural, Larry?)"
Man, you're an idiot and a jerk and your above comment proves it.
Once again for those who have slept through the last few hundred years of American history: blacks are over-represented among the impoverished in the US.
It's not bigotry to point that out, nor is it bigotry to point out that more of them live in the Southern US than in Alaska. Only an idiot or a jerk would think otherwise -- hence my conclusion regarding you, my pitiable friend.
The disparities between black and white incomes are an indisputable fact. Even a shill like Condi Rice knows this is a troubling fact and just said so today.
And I'm pointing it out because the descrepancy is evidence of either (1) existing unfairness or (2) historical prejudice or (3) both, as I've already indicated, plainly.
If there was evidence that blacks are genetically dumber and lazier than whites, I'd be happy to put that in my list, ucfengr. Why don't you show me that evidence? If it exists, I don't doubt that you'd know where to find it very quickly.
posted on 09.13.2005 5:20 PM69
Mumon:
Source?
Slightly off, we are fourth for primary and third for secondary as of 1998.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu
Of course we are being beat in spending by those economic powerhouses of Switzerland, Denmark, and Austria.
Ummm... why? Because then there'll be the ability for poorer states to catch up?
Your class continues to show Mumon. I mean, you come right out and attack my motives. That's the response of a loser. Of course, yep, you got me. I hate the poor. I want more poor. (I just don't want you to miss that and take it seriously.)
Actually, my point is that the Constitution does not give the Federal government a role in education. Who knows better how to educate your child, a bureaucrat in Washington or you? Or do you think the Feds should just hand out money, no questions asked? Oh no, we can't do that either because that would mean vouchers and school choice. Your problem is that you associate morality with supporting government programs. The smell of that belief reeks in every comment you make. Of course, every government that has tried to solve every human problem has been a disastrous tyranny, but who are you to let facts get in the way. Follow the way of Mumon and there will be a world utopia.
I think I'll demand an apology for your unfounded accusation.
posted on 09.13.2005 5:48 PM70
The disparities between black and white incomes are an indisputable fact. Even a shill like Condi Rice knows this is a troubling fact and just said so today.
And I'm pointing it out because the descrepancy is evidence of either (1) existing unfairness or (2) historical prejudice or (3) both, as I've already indicated, plainly.
******
It's here that the wheels fall off the wagon. Why is the difference in income caused by 1, 2, or 3? How to explain the success of middle- and upper-class blacks? Are they Supermen?--in that they are demonstrably more intelligent and gifted than other blacks? Why the disparity among blacks, but not among first-generation or East Europeans? Why the disparity between lower-class whites and middle-class blacks?
To blame racism for the plight of many poor blacks is not only demeaning to whites, but to blacks: if other ethnic minorities can thrive here, why not they? And why do white trash from Arkansas and Mississippi get labeled as welfare cheats (many are), but blacks get a free ride because of the race card?
Nope. There has been a cycle of dependency created by the cradle-to-grave welfare system we have. It actually affects far more whites than blacks. How to fix it?--I don't know. But the people who live without a "safety net" seem to fly higher. Go figure.
posted on 09.13.2005 5:54 PM71
Kevin W
"It's here that the wheels fall off the wagon. Why is the difference in income caused by 1, 2, or 3? How to explain the success of middle- and upper-class blacks?"
The wheels fall off the wagon because you'd rather set the wagon on fire than admit that using your taxes to put food on a stupid person's table is arguably a fair thing to do under certain circumstances.
If you think there are other explanations for the disparity we all know exists, then let's hear them.
Whether some whites are extremely poor or some blacks are extremely rich does not change the statistical facts that we are discussing.
"But the people who live without a "safety net" seem to fly higher."
They "seem" to "fly higher", you say. How many of them "seem" to "fly higher" Kevin? 100%? 50%? 20%? 5%? And what about those who don't "fly higher" and who don't have a "safety net"? I suppose they make good launching pads for the high flying types, especially when they're piled up in mounds.
posted on 09.13.2005 6:25 PM72
Man, you're an idiot and a jerk and your above comment proves it.
Wow, high praise coming from the master.
It's not bigotry to point that out, nor is it bigotry to point out that more of them live in the Southern US than in Alaska.
I understand now, the South starts in Canada. I guess geography wasn't a requirement at your "special" school. You know the thing you rode the short, yellow bus to get to.
73
ucfengr
"I understand now"
You understood before. Hence the descriptive title: "jerk".
posted on 09.13.2005 7:02 PM74
Here's an interesting piece of news
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/13/katrina.bridge/index.html
As the heart of a hurricane-ravaged New Orleans filled with sewage-tainted floodwaters and corpses, Mayor Ray Nagin urged people to cross a bridge leading to the dry lands of the city's suburban west bank.
But some evacuees who tried that route told CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" and "News Night with Aaron Brown" that they were met by police with shotguns who refused to allow them into Gretna, a nearby town on the other side. ...
Asked why Gretna authorities did not allow the group into town and call for buses, Lawson said, "Who were we going to call?"
"We had no radios. We had no phones. We had no communications, as I just told you," he said. "We had not spoken to the city of New Orleans prior to or during this event. Who were we going to call? What were we going to do with thousands of people without enough water to sustain them, without enough food to sustain them, or without any shelter?"
---------------------------------
Does this remind any Christians here of a famous story in the New Testament?
posted on 09.13.2005 7:23 PM75
Chris Lutz :
I didn't want to offend you, but my point is the real reason behind what you say is an ideology, not a pragmatic "try and see what works" approach.
...we are fourth for primary and third for secondary as of 1998.
That was 1998, of course. As you know, state and local governments have been squeezed by recession, and such.
That was under Clinton; I will, if I get a chance look around to see if there's more recent data.
The US was recently reported on several measures as being somewhere around 9 or 10 in overall quality of life in the English language Japanese press, so I suspect more recent data may be available. The Japanese scored just below the US, they noted that the survey method didn't take into account the unification of continuing education (real continuing education; not Powerpoint slides) in large Japanese companies.
Switzerland is indeed an economic power house per capita. They make drugs.
Actually, my point is that the Constitution does not give the Federal government a role in education.
Well, the Commerce Clause notwithstanding, would you be in favor of an ammendment giving the Federal government a role in this if I could make the case that it's more effective? As somebody used to say in the country I find myself at the moment, "What does it matter if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice?"
Who knows better how to educate your child, a bureaucrat in Washington or you?
Well, bureaucrats don't actually do the educating, but what they can do is to correlate standards of education across the country with those of our immediate competitors.
For example, foreign language requirements and how they're taught across various countries. (BTW, in this regard, Japan is joke, but that's a problem of execution, not the idea. China and India I remember reading have more English speakers than the US does. )
While I'm at it I might as well add that in many respects local school boards do a dirt poor job.
Forget about science for a millisecond. Let me stay with foreign languages. A good friend's son wasn't able to study Chinese in high school at anything like an appropriate level for him (he's Chinese, and fluent in English- the boy just got into Princeton). Nobody has budgets for Chinese teachers. The school district (and mine) have inflexible rules in this regard. It's a joke.
But he could take Spanish, which he did and did well. But he could have been doing college level Chinese.
Your problem is that you associate morality with supporting government programs.
Your problem is you associate morality with a lack of supporting government programs, I'd say. But your statement is false: I associate morality with using effective means to prevent strife rather than condemn those who suffer as a result of shortsightedness.
Of course, every government that has tried to solve every human problem has been a disastrous tyranny, ...
That's a strawman.
posted on 09.13.2005 7:52 PM76
I think that the vast majority of poor blacks are poor for the same reasons as the vast majority of poor whites. They dropped out of school too early. Or they had babies when they were teenagers. Or they are lazy. Or they have been disincentivized by the welfare system. It's hard to say, though, that whites who are perpetually poor, generation after generation is because they're just unlucky, whereas the black family stuck in the same cycle are being held down by whitey.
The same behaviors that will cause poverty in black homes will cause poverty in white homes: teenage pregnancy, dropping out of school, alcoholism and drug abuse, quitting jobs before lining up another, etc. And, yes, stupidity.
posted on 09.13.2005 7:54 PM77
Nobody has budgets for Chinese teachers. The school district (and mine) have inflexible rules in this regard. It's a joke.
**
Why is it a joke not to have a budget for a Chinese teacher? How many Chinese teachers are there? What if I don't want to study Chinese, but Hmong? Should I demand a curriculum in Hmong? What are the chances that if you're bilingual in Chinese and English, you can command far more pay working for a bank or as an engineer than you can working as a teacher, so there just aren't that many around? What are the chances that even if your school board went out a hired a Chinese teacher, most of the kids wouldn't want to take Chinese, because it's one of the three most difficult major languages in the world to learn?
posted on 09.13.2005 7:59 PM78
Kevin, please bring the goalpost back from Mars and leave it where you found it.
And then read this so we're all on the same page.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/13/education.compared.ap/index.html
The United States is losing ground in education, as peers across the globe zoom by with bigger gains in student achievement and school graduations, a study shows.
Among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree.
The report, released Tuesday, bases its conclusions about achievement mainly on international test scores released last December. They show that compared with their peers in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, 15-year-olds in the United States are below average in applying math skills to real-life tasks.
Top performers included Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium.
------------------
The Netherlands????? Canada????? Finland???? Maybe people who are genetically prone to socialism are just better at math. What do you think, Kevin?
I'm sure all these problems will go away when we include lectures about mysterious alien beings and their mysterious deeds in public school biology classes.
That sort of "critical thinking" and coddling of religious mythology is what makes the education systems in those countries so robust.
Right?
79
Kevin W:
They dropped out of school too early. Or they had babies when they were teenagers. Or they are lazy.
The last one is rather unfounded; a substantial number of the poor actually work for a living.
And even if they had dropped out of school "too early," who would do those jobs that the employed poor do if they were educated? Would you accept then a living wage for the working poor?
And as for babies, you don't we should do anything about born babies? Or do you?
Why is it a joke not to have a budget for a Chinese teacher? How many Chinese teachers are there? What if I don