The knee-deep potholes on Cotton Street were filled just hours before Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards arrived this week. Residents had waited years for them to be fixed in a city so overwhelmed by poverty it once moved the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to tears.
At a smoked-ribs barbecue, Edwards invoked the legacy of King, calling it an honor to walk in the same places the civil rights leader did and to bring fresh attention to the poor and disenfranchised.
“But we still have work to do,” Edwards said Monday to the dozens gathered on the first day of his three-day tour through poor communities in the United States.
From the underpaid poultry workers in the Mississippi Delta to the uninsured coal miners in Appalachia, Edwards’s “Road to One America” tour was designed to showcase what he calls the “other America” of boarded-up factories and foreclosed homes. It was also part of an effort to develop a defining theme for his campaign. But he is not the only Democrat to highlight the 37 million Americans living in poverty as a focal point of the 2008 presidential election.
After decades of promoting economic growth as the best cure for poverty, Democrats are trying to woo voters with promises of direct financial aid and to reach out to people who have seen their lives worsen over the last eight years. Democrats are now embracing such solutions to combat entrenched poverty, and in the process taking on Republicans on issues beyond the war in Iraq.
“The poor will always be with us.”
It’s how we enable the poor to help themselves that counts.
Hand outs that sap a generationally poor population of self-respect ultimately create a generationally transmitted sense of “separateness” that leads to frustration and anger.
Self-sufficiency leads to a sense being ‘one’s own person’ and a level of pride in one’s position in society based upon one’s own achievements.
The real issue is the collapse of the family. That implosion has been particularly painful within the African American community. This is not Dr. King’s world. The issues today are very different.
Now … should the Dems really want to help solve the problem, perhaps they could start talking about the role of fathers in the family, the need for life-long faithfulness and the role parents play in raising children. Oh, wait … never mind …
Maryland Brian
#1
interesting ideas about self-sufficinecy – where in Scripture do they come from ?
# 2
It seems like you may have missed this:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama presented a plan for lifting up poor families that included searing criticism of fathers who abandon their responsibilities to raise children.
“There are a lot of men out there who need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one,” Obama said.
Obama, who grew up without a father in his home, stressed the impact absentee fathers have in contributing to poverty, particularly among African-Americans.
“Too many black men simply cannot afford to raise a family-and too many have made the sad choice not to,” Obama said. “A fatherless household takes its toll. Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and nine times more likely to drop out of school.”
I believe that one of the major heresies of today is that people do not do right because of a lack of education and that this can be supplied by government. The church and the family have lost their influence and the values come from rappers, Hollywood and the street.
It appear Sojo has had an influence on the Dems.
I think it is time for some Christian economic reform. We have too long (especially conservatives) deferred to market capitalism as if Adam Smith were an inspired prophet of the Lord. Let us not forget that the first Church sold all that they had and shared it. Communalism is part of our Orthodox heritage.
I find myself doctrinally orthodox, socially conservative, and economically progressive. I do not think we can accomplish any worthwhile economic changes, however, without basing them firmly on the Truth of the Gospel and the moral organization that follow.
Republican “trickle-down” economic practices are a greater risk to our society than whatever evil lurks behind obscene rapper lyrics. Even if one chooses to ignore the Gospel imperative to help the poor, the widows, the prisoners,( that is, all of God’s children), base self-interest should make a nation encourage all of its people to be true share-holders in the company of economic security. Christ asks much more than that, and a person from any place on the faith spectrum should be an advocate for the working poor.
It is always no small irony to me that when asked for a verse from Scripture that they remember, Americans routinely name their #1 verse as:
God helps those who help themselves
Look from Genesis to Revelation – it is not to be found.
As my namesake aptly remarked, “Dependency breeds subservience.” Or, more cynically, he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul’s vote come election day.
Anyone who thinks the milk of Christian kindness motivates the Democratic Party needs adult supervision.
Jeffersonian, I am curious – does the milk of Christian kindness motivates the Republican Party ?
Jeffersonian, I don’t see anyone being robbed right now, unless, like me, you are appalled by our poor stewardship of tax dollars thrown down the hell-hole in Iraq.
[blockquote]Let us not forget that the first Church sold all that they had and shared it. [/blockquote]
Let’s also not forget that it didn’t work and was quickly abandoned. In fact, it was abandoned so quickly that Luke assumes his readers have never heard of the practice.
In fact, communal finances do work quite well in certain conditions. Nothing in the scriptural accounts indicates that the system didn’t work, although problems are noted (the Greek complaints, for example). There is nothing sacred about our American one-man-one bank-account system, nor sacred about communal finances. Remember that Peter told Annias and Sapphira they were entirely free to keep their property, though not to lie about donating it. Monastic and religious communities through history have lived communally, with great profit to the Church at large. Protestant communties, such as the Bruderhof, have also managed long-term communal arrangements. I think some Mennonite and Amish settlements may operate communally as well. It’s an option.
And bob carlton, if you can turn down the snide-meter for a moment, perhaps you can check out Thessalonians: “if they won’t work, they don’t eat”.
Having spent a good part of 35 years in various human services activities with handicapped people, homeless folks and now convicted felons, I would support the notion that handouts debilitate and degrade. As the cliche goes: a hand-up, not a hand-out; the last statistics I saw on Pres. Clinton’s welfare reform in the 90s indicated strong success in moving folks from handouts to productive work, which is what we want. Finally, the poverty statistics in this country are skewed by not counting government funds received (and, I think, certain other kinds of income) so that poverty will never be eliminated, on the books, no matter how rich we are.
This is the real “finally”: Obama should get the praise due him for his comments. The more I hear, the more I like him. I probably won’t vote for him for other reasons, but I give him credit where credit is due.
12
You cannot possibly mean that the message of Acts 4:32- 5:11 is that we should avoid collectivism, in favor of competitive economics:
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
This passage is clearly in praise of the arrangement in Jerusalem. As one who takes Scripture as God’s word I do not want to write this passage off as bleeding heart nonsense.
I think as a Christian community we need to think way beyond the dichotomy of Democrats and Republicans. As an Expat Yank in Canada these categories are nearly meaningless to me anyway. So we need to think way beyond Conservative, Capitalist, Liberal or Communist. Our communal goals are very different from the secular world’s. No one should talking about a free ride. I am self employed and clock a lot of hours for my families daily bread. But I am not happy with the economic setting I find myself beholden to. I cannot help but think in the present age we could not get a little creative, inspired by the above Scripture and do something of value. We leave too much up to our society, when we should be forging new teritory for Christ. The practical finances of the capitalist along with the communal responsibility of collectivism would make a good combination.
Ah, yes Democrats, always wanting to do good with other peoples money taken by force. Remember the power to tax is backed up by the full power of the state.
15.
I have not noticed that Republicans abolished taxes. This whole Democrat-Republican dichotomy is adolescent in society. And it is repugnant in the Church.
But Republicans [b]CUT[/b] taxes quite a bit (so much so that this household now gets refunds instead of paying out as we did under Pres. Clinton!). The real regret is that the Republican led congress did not take up the issue of making the taxes permanent before the Democrats took over.
As I understand it, they had to wait until the end of the tax cuts effective time period and that time was set for after the elections.
Of course, the Democrats say they will let them expire without extending nor making them permanent, which is NOT good news for us or for U.S.
Thank God the Congress did not extend tax cuts that were disportionately geared to the wealthy, resulting in an income inequality not seen since before the Great Depression.
One thing you seem to be able to count on with the last 2 term presidents is ginormous deficits, a gift for future generations.
Whenever I hear complaints about capitalism and “trickle down” economics, I note that the comments are inevitably devoid of any meaningful analysis of the effectiveness of government programs. Every analysis I have seen shows that only a tiny fraction of amounts allocated in government programs actually reach the intended recipients. The gross inefficiencies create a need for even more taxes, thus creating a downward spiral.
Moreover, as Pope John Paul II noted 15 years ago in the Atlantic article “What Can We Do About the Poor?”, government is inherently incapable of solving such social programs. Solutions must come from individuals, such as Christians, who feel called to such action. Consider that after 40+ years of “progress” from government programs, the black illegitimacy rate has doubled.
What is so sad is that most Christians (and probably most Americans) regardless of political persuasion would agree about the end goals of relieving poverty, improving education, improving healthcare, etc. That we have sincere differences about how best to achieve those goals should not keep us from an honest inquiry and search for the best methods instead of a reactive need to justify our own positions.
[blockquote] Jeffersonian, I am curious – does the milk of Christian kindness motivates the Republican Party ? [/blockquote]
No, nor should it. To do so will create the obvious moral hazard of rewarding wretchedness, hence the result being a race to become wretched.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, I don’t see anyone being robbed right now, unless, like me, you are appalled by our poor stewardship of tax dollars thrown down the hell-hole in Iraq. [/blockquote]
Then you’re not paying attention. The budget has ballooned to nearly $3 trillion uner this president, and it ain’t all going to Iraq.
William, then throw your money at it. And let the rest of decide where ours should go.
Br. Micheal,
I am not talking of government programs or taking your money without your consent. I would rather through my back into such reforms than my money at them. I agree whole heartedly with Pope John Paul; we need to make changes and do the good. The state will always be wasteful and misguided.
To sight a small example, there is a Christian group health care program. This group allows people to join in for group rates if their employment does not put them in the same position. I am not sure that this solves all the problems associated with heath care in your country, but it is an example of a non-state solution to a very big economic problem.
Bob, I ain’t rich, far from it, in fact, and the tax cuts helped ME. The old saw “tax cuts only help the rich” doesn’t cut it anymore.
It’s just another Democrat talking point/scare tactic designed to cull popular opinion against the President and win them the next election.
The savings from taxes have to be offset with the loss of services over time, and the additional payments for these.
Well, William what is your pointf?
William,
There is a solution called ‘cutting pork’, which neither the Republicans nor Democrats seem willing to do. There is a lot of spending which is not necessary, but again, neither party seems willing to make the needed cut-backs. The solution is not “keep spending, just raise taxes”. Eventually there will be a revolt against unjustified taxation to pay for un-needed projects.
26-27
I do not trust government of any stripe. I am a Christian after all.
Still, I want for my family certain goods. I cannot afford private school for my children so I am stuck with public school. In Canada this system seems to be both Fat and Cut, and both in all the wrong places. The system should probably be stripped, but without a viable replacement my children would have less than they already have.
Many Goods (most as I think about it) require some social organization to produce. It is impossible for me to produce food and education and housing and safety and healthcare and clothing and most anything I use daily without the effort of others. My point is we can continue to leave the production of these goods up to secular or state or market forces, or we can make some effort to organize the production of these goods with other, namely Christian, social arrangements. If we are not willing to put the effort into changing these systems of production, I am not sure what we can complain about. I would love to not pay any tax to the state and put my resources and efforts into systems of production that I could directly influence and morally condone, but this will not happen through simply cutting taxes. We have to create the reason to cut taxes first, and then revolt. Otherwise we will be in worse shape than before.
Jefersonian, are you also a Deist like your namesake?
[blockquote]Jefersonian, are you also a Deist like your namesake? [/blockquote]
No, but I am a hawkish minarchist like my namesake.
Not sure how we can controll the size of our governments now without an equally large force to resist them. There are a tad more people in the not-so-new world than in the 18th century.
Of course this force could be a well formed population. One actually morally awake enough to live in a libertine world. What do you do to promote this?
It always amazes me how the Rich Democrats demand that the middle class give more while they give little to nothing. I am all for personal charity and would like some of the rich to reduce their life style to mine before they demand I give more. Wow how much would that make available to the poor. But most of the Very wealthy would prefer to have a building on a college campus named after them than fund a training program for the poor. I have worked on a college campus were there was much crying for doing more for the poor. There were plenty of scholarships for the faculty and administrators but not a single program for the children of the custodians, grounds workers or maintenance workers that would help them to be successful in the institution their parents worked to keep running.
Set the example and I will follow, take anymore from my check and I will stop working.
The report on the news today stated that the amount of money raised by the Democratic candidates far outstripps anything the eight Republican candidates have raised. Yet not one mention of campaign finance reform or the outrage at the ‘rich, fat cat’ Democratic contributors that would have been raised had the situations been reversed. Interesting double standard at play.
libraryjim,
It have slipped your attention, but Obama actually raised his $30M from 248,000 supporters – a breadth that is unrivaled in modern politics.
A number of GOP pundits have commented on the gap between GOP pres contenders & Dem pres contenders as an enthusiasm gap.
My point still stands. One exception does not the rule negate.
one other point, libraryjim, the dems have raised $28M online vs. $9.4M by the repubs – not very fat cat
Republicans are waiting for a front runner after the primaries. but you prove my point: Dems are raising millions from a very wealthy base, yet they decry wealth when Rep. hold it. double standard.
A friend just sent me this ‘joke’. I can’t help but posting it here:
Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.
The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.
Now, do you understand the difference?
😉
Libraryjim,
You’ve got to be kidding.
About what? You dont’ think this is a fairly accurate parable on the differences between the way Republicans and Democrats see/treat problems? I rather thought it pretty clever, although I can’t take credit for it.
I have not noticed that republicans are that generous. The characterization of American soft liberalism is acurate though.
Didn’t you read the study posted on ‘old T1:9’ that said:
conservative Americans are more generous than liberal Americans, and when you add religion to the mix, conservative religious Americans give more than any other group?
I am new tro T19. I am glad to hear it and would like to see the study.