I agree with Jeff completely. For what it's worth, if I have any reading comprehension skills at all, I am led to believe Jesus Christ would agree with Jeff's post completely. Obviously, many Americans do not agree with the sentiments however. Every sad or unfortunate case belongs to a "lazy" person in the view of some. Statistically, that is simply impossible, but it must help a good many people sleep better at night.
i'm very persuaded by that logic..and what has been beating me up is that anything else (like ideals surrounding americana, capitalism, the Constitution, etc.) is, from the perspective of my faith tradition, nothing but idolatry.
What contradiction do you see between the ideas expressed in Jeff's post and Americana (not sure what that is) and the Constitution?
conservative ideas...libertarian ideas..."pull yourself up by the bootstraps" ideas...pre- New Deal ideas that governed this country for a very, very long time.
The fact that people ANYWHERE in the world are dying of starvation absolutely disgusts me. There is enough food produced to feed the entire world, for gods sake people should not be starving to death in the year 2004. Sudanese children dying of hunger Aid workers fear there could be thousands of burials in Darfur Hundreds of children have started to starve to death in Sudan's war-torn western province of Darfur. The BBC's Hilary Andersson saw the burial of two-year-old Ikram and says 400 other children in the same camp in Kalma were unable to keep food down. Their families have fled attacks by pro-government Arab militias, accused of forcing black Africans off the land. Last week, a senior aid worker said 300,000 people would starve in Darfur, even if help is sent immediately. Some 10,000 have died in Darfur, since a rebellion broke out last year and one million have fled their homes. The rains have already begun to fall, which will soon make Darfur, an area the size of France, virtually impassable, our correspondent says. Speaking after his return from the area, UK Secretary for International Development Hilary Benn said Darfur was undoubtedly the largest humanitarian crisis in the world and more aid agencies were needed there. "We are in a race against time in Darfur," he told MPs. He admitted that the international response to the crisis had been too little, too late but said the UK was committed to doing all that it could. "I have also been concerned about the adequacy and speed of the UN's response, although this should now change." Our reporter in Darfur says that while Ikram died, another boy on the same mat, Joseph, could not be coaxed to eat. His mother could do nothing but watch. The mother of nine-month-old Adam says that she walked without food for 10 days to reach the camp. "The militias burnt our village... They were burning the children," she said. Our correspondent says village after village in Darfur has been burnt, while food is running out in all the camps, where people have sought refuge. "If we get relief in, we could lose a third of a million. If we do not, it could be a million," Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development told a UN donor conference last week. The figures were based on mortality and malnutrition rates, he said. The government and two rebel groups have signed a ceasefire but the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) has accused the army and its militia allies of attacking them near the border with Chad earlier this week. Jem official Abu Bakr Hamid al-Nur told Reuters news agency that the government had used an Antonov aircraft and helicopters to bomb the rebel positions.
how do we let something like that happen without at least trying to stop it. obviously we can't take care of every problem..but i'm not sure there's an excuse before God for not trying. that indicts me, too.
The problem lies in why people believe this. They feel guilty that they worked hard to make it on their own while they see homeless folks. It all stems from guilt, not rationality. I know that not having a minimum wage would actually help people instead of forcing companies to pay people more than what the job they perform is worth in a free market. You are hurting the very people you want to prop up and don't even realize it. The fact that people would seriously consider this as a way to deal with poverty is a testament to the total lack of economic education in this country. I don't buy that people are trying to support a family on mimimum wage. For starters, most minimum wage folks are teens in their first job or two. Second, if someone is stupid enough to try and start a family on minimum wage, it comes from stupidity and irresponsibility, not a tough job market. Poverty is decision making, plain and simple. My grandparents in Alabama were poor, especially since my grandfather lost an eye and a leg in WWII. But my grandmother worked two and three jobs to support their three kids. A friend of mine who is a high school baseball coach doesn't traffic in excuses. He tells his players simply "just get it done." The same applies to life. I don't give a damn about all the self-made excuses that poverty advocates throw up, saying that just because you are poor and come from a broken home, you don't have to worry about succeeding. You guys rig people with a ready-made excuse. It is far easier to give up. I learned that in boot camp. If you believe, you can achieve. No matter what your circumstances. I have a coffee cup at home with a skull and bones and the motto I lived since I was a little boy. It says "results, not excuses." That my friends says it all.
Poor people who dream of having a family shouldn't be allowed to, heh? Pay people a living wage and the incentive to work, and work well enough to keep your job goes up.
bamaslammer -- you're right...there is a twinge of guilt. i don't think there's anything unhealthy about that, by the way. because, frankly, in many ways my successes haven't been because of me...in some ways they've been in spite of me. if i got what i deserved, it wouldn't be real pretty.
That's decision making. If you don't have the money to properly support children, why should you have them? Get a job that makes enough money. Why should I pay for people to have children who can't afford to take care of them properly? Like I said before, a living wage would do nothing but put more of the very people you're trying to help out of work. Companies can't afford to pay every janitor 20 dollars an hour. The simplest economics book would tell you that much.
Sadly it indicts us all. However i, as usual, lay most of the blame on the media. I bet more people know that Janet Jackson exposed her breast than the fact that 300,000 people are about to starve to death. Yes we cannot take care of every problem but food is the most basic of needs and there is more than enough for everybody. Absolutely nobody should go hungry in this day and age
Fine, but don't be against social services for the poor and then try and restrict them from having abortions or not supporting safe sex and birth-control education/services. I don't know for sure your stance on abortion but I do know the propensity of the religious right in the republican party to be pro-life and then oppose and or CUT social services for those same children once they are born--utter hypocrisy. And PLEASE don't trumpet faith-based initiatiatives--with respect to Max--they don't come CLOSE to providing for the needs of the poor in this country.
Wouldn't paying that janitor more money create spur the economy by increasing demand, as the janitor is able to increase consumption. And the company will benefit from a growing economy. Isn't that the logic used to justify the tax cuts? More money in the pockets of consumers.
No. Since the free market dictates that a certain job, which is determined by the scarcity of people able to do that job, is worth x amount per hour, you have a bad situation by forcing companies to pay janitors 20 dollars an hour. They've got to pass the costs on to someone, so that'll will be the consumers of their product or they simply won't hire as many janitors. Eventually, that company will find it more profitable to move overseas (because unlike what most liberals believe, companies exist solely to make a profit for their shareholders, not to give people jobs.) and do so to a country that doesn't force them to pay people more than what they're worth. It sounds harsh, but it is the truth.
Actually the companies can easier afford that than having to constantly retrain people because of high turnover rates. Now there is a point where it will no longer be true, but with the current minimum wage large companies that pay it would actually save money by raising the wage and giving people incentive to stay at the job. With retraining employees comes more expenses, in the form of retraining lack of morale, worker efficiency, and thereby company efficiency. Take the money that's wasted in that every year and pay a better wage. Everyone benefits.
This is exactly why you establish trade agreements with other countries that require minimum levels of evironmental/labor protections. Otherwise it's a never ending race to the bottom as companies play one vulnerable population against another. Of course, companies/corporations exist solely to make a profit, they are not moral entities and must be regulated for the good of society. You establish a common floor of labor/environmental/human rights conditions below which no country may fall if they want to trade within your trade network. The logic of your free market existed at one time in the U.S. and the result was horrific labor conditions, that included rampant and abusive child labor, because as you say "companies exist solely to make a profit for their shareholders". This dictates that companies would exploit a cheap and easily controlled workforce (children). Did the passage of child labor laws do damage to our economy? Of course not. Those jobs went to their parents, who were not so easily controlled and formed unions, which led to the passage of even more labor laws, like the 40 hour work week. And yet somehow the U.S. economy still managed to chug along. So, Do you think laws regulationg child labor should be abolished?
True libertarians still have room for basic human compassion. Fascists, on the other hand, do not. Production and financial success outweigh all else.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You've worked hard and reaped the benefit. However, if you want only what you deserve, you can feel free to remit the rest directly to me immediately.
I have a serious problem accepting the suffering of children because their parents were "too stupid to plan their family better." Frankly, I have a serious problem accepting the suffering of ANYONE because they don't plan their lives well. Doctors don't refuse to treat people with self-inflicted injuries. Suffering is suffering. Period. I'm not talking about buying a guy heroin because he is hurting from his need for a fix. But, I cannot simply ignore a man who is suffering because I think he should know better. I am not a Christian, but the one thing that I hold as sacred among the teachings of Christ is his overwhelming sense of compassion and empathy for those who suffer for ANY reason and his absolute disgust for injustice, particularly among the less fortunate. I cannot sit idly by and accept that a person "should've known better." None of us knows the future. We don't know what our act of kindness will create. We can have no idea what sewing a seed of compassion will do for another human being. This discussion reminds me of the Buddhist vow of the bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is one who has decided that, despite even his own attainment of enlightenment, he will forgo moving on to the next plane of existence and continue to be reborn into this world until suffering is eliminated for EVERYONE else. Much like Jesus took the sin of the world on his shoulders, the bodhisattva takes the suffering of the world on his and carries it until all others have found their way out of it. Many Buddhists in fact consider Jesus to be a bodhisattva. No matter how much value we may place on the accumulation of wealth, it pales in comparison to the eradication of suffering, even for an instant, for those who are most in need. As Jacob Marley told Scrouge when he pointed out how successful Marley had been in the world of business, "But, KIND should have been my business." I know that there are plenty of people who find that sentiment to be sappy and unrealistic. That's a shame. Personally, I see it as noble and idealistic and wish I could be more like that myself.
