Today I heard it reported again.
During an interview with one of the major networks, an official with an inner-city economic development network made a simple, unsurprising comment.
"Eighty-nine percent of the people evacuated from the city of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina had been employed before the storm," she reported.
Her concern had to do with the market opportunities in low-income communities and new economic development. But the statistics line up almost exactly with our periodic surveys of the people who come seeking assistance here at Central Dallas Ministries.
Our most recent, admittedly unscientific survey told us that of the people who visit our Emergency Resource Center in East Dallas, 89% are either working, have worked full-time but are now in retirement or suffer from some sort of disability. Of the slightly less than 11% of the unemployed, over half of these folks are between jobs and do not intend to remain without work.
Lots of people don't get this.
Most poor people--the vast majority of the poor--work.
They do not earn enough to make a decent living, but they do work.
They don't usually receive benefits, like health insurance, paid vacations, professional training for advancement or retirement plans, but they do work.
Anyone who wants to get into the reality of economic and day-to-day family life at or near the bottom needs to comprehend this basic fact of life among the poor.
When surveying the people who show up at our door, we always find that in many households there are multiple persons working.
Some poor people, as is the case with some rich people, are lazy and don't want to work. But this is not the major problem we face today in our cities.
It is clear to me that since the market will not provide adequate wages for these hard-working fellow citizens, the collective expression of the nation's heart must. Government initiatives that reward work need to be beefed up.
Work must be a requirement--no hand outs to able-bodied Americans. But the promise of the nation has always been that if one works hard and plays by the rules, a decent, dignified life would be the result.
My faith tells me that we must not settle for less than this.
The poor work.
We must insure that their work pays off.
44 comments:
I must admit that sometimes I have my doubts about the 89% who work. I know so many who don't work. I realize there is so much more to their situation than just not wanting to work but it is still frustrating.
Just this weekend, however, a dear friend called to express her frustration. She is stuck in one of the circumstances you often describe.
She has a 6 month old baby that she pays over $600/month for daycare and her oldest daughter is a freshman in college.
Her daughter received $1600 in financial aid for the entire school year. They have taken out the rest in loans, but are unable to take out anymore subsidized loans and, I believe, are at their limit for the total amount they can request anyway. Her daughter is in an engineering school so, as a past blogger explained, yes she might be able to do well and pay back her loans in 4 years, but right now they are so financially strapped that they are unsure of how to pay for her daughter's education, her other daughter's daycare, along with their current bills.
She has so much pride that she has refused to ask for help. However, in juggling all of her bills, she bounced one check and the cards are now all falling down. She decided to seek assistance, only to find that she cannot receive assistance if she makes over $18,000/year.
As a much wealthier friend told me this week...it was her bad decisions and bad choices that got her there. He suggested that people like her should find a roommate (which I'm sure would be cozy with her baby and her boyfriend in a small apartment) and make any other adjustments necessary. My wealthier friend has no doubt that she and others like her can make it. People in India are much worse off than anyone here, he informed me. Of course, the only poor people he knows or has contact with are the ones I tell him about.
I see why poor people who do get some money stay poor. When you know someone so well (which most poor people know other poor people), you feel a need to help your friends stay afloat. Therefore, the people helping most (because they know and understand the situation) are the people with the least amount of money. That's why we need to fix the system!
Larry, I apologize if this is a repetitive post, but I can't recall if I've already asked you about this. Have you heard or read anything about the Fair Tax Bill? I'm curious what you think about it. If it's true, and I'm not disputing the figures, that 89% of the poor are working, then the Fair Tax seems like great way to help them start saving and climbing out of poverty. What are your thoughts?
Todd
Thanks for the post and for challenging our caricatures of the poor.
Todd, if the Fair Tax Bill includes a flat tax as its basis, then it is too regressive to really assist the poor as I view things. I really am not familiar with it. Maybe you could enlighten us.
Why do grown people have jobs that do not pay enough to earn a "decent" living?
What were they doing during their formative years? Were they studying? Partying? Doing drugs? Drinking? Going to school?
What were they doing during late teens and early twenties? Going to college? Going to trade school? Drinking? Doing drugs? Partying?
What do they do with their paycheck they earn now? Living off the minimum and saving ever nickel and dime they can stash away? Drinking? Doing drugs? Partying? Cell phone? Cable TV?
The point is that poor is (in the vast majority of cases) a choice. It may not be obvious, but it is the result of decades of decision making.
Baron, it is apparent to me that you do not know many poor people.
Larry,
What am I supposed to conclude from your retort? Would my arguement be stronger if I was a different person? Would anecdotal evidence would somehow bolster my claim? Are you seriously attacking the merits of my position by pointing to me, rather than pointing to the argument itself?
The answer is in your question here.
If you were a different person, you would have no argument or you would make a different argument.
The argument that you make here is based on the assumptions which you outline clearly about the poor.
My point is simple: your assumptions are false. I can find no better way to challenge your argument.
The vast majority of the poor are not poor because they are irresponsible. Most poor working people are not without skills because they did the things you accuse them of.
You don't know the poor, so you find them easy to judge. Blaming victims is what people of privilege often do. That makes them easier to dismiss so that life can go on as is.
You also are not at all in touch with your own advantage.
Allow me to make a "fair tax" plug while I am at it. The fair tax taxes everything at a flat 20-25% basis that acts like a sales tax. Every household is "pre-imbursed" for the sales tax up to a certain level.
For example, if the rate is 20% and the identified level is $30,000, then every household will be "pre-imbursed" $500 per month or $6,000 per year. That covers the sales tax for "necessities" and the like.
Details can be found at http://www.fairtax.org/.
Currently, the poor pay payroll taxes (7.65%) on their entire paycheck. Under the fair tax, that would disappear. The poor also currently pay a "hidden" tax of 12-20% embedded in the cost of consumer goods. That is because of the corporate taxes that the goods producing company paid. Since corporations are not in the business of losing money, they pass those on to the consumer.
For example, let's say a twelve pack of coke costs $5.00. About $1.00 of that is corporate tax (on the product, packaging, ad company, employee taxes, etc.). Under the fair tax, that would disappear and the coke would now be $4.00.
With the hidden taxes and the payroll taxes, the poor are currently paying more of a share of their earnings in taxes than John Kerry(!), and certainly more than they would pay under the fair tax.
I hope that helps you.
Larry,
My responses to your comment are in parentheses.
If you were a different person, you would have no argument or you would make a different argument. (Does that mean you cannot address the merits of my position?)
The argument that you make here is based on the assumptions which you outline clearly about the poor. (Again, does that mean you cannot address the merits? Why are you so fascinated with the financial position of a person? Can John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, or other rich people not discuss poverty because they are rich? That makes no sense. Please address the merits instead of me.)
My point is simple: your assumptions are false. I can find no better way to challenge your argument. (How about facts, statistics, and logic? That is certainly a "better way.")
The vast majority of the poor are not poor because they are irresponsible. (How do you know this? Is there a study you can cite? Do you have statistics?) Most poor working people are not without skills because they did the things you accuse them of. (I did not accuse anyone of being without any skills. Go back and read my comment carefully.)
You don't know the poor, so you find them easy to judge. (How do you know who I know and who I don't? Do you know where I am from? Please describe in detail the people I know. I am curious what you know about me.) Blaming victims is what people of privilege often do. (I did not blame a "victim" of any crime or civil misconduct. What do you mean by victim?) That makes them easier to dismiss so that life can go on as is. (Your statement here is based on your assumption that poor people are "victims" of something.)
You also are not at all in touch with your own advantage. (What advantage do I have? Again, why do you believe you know so much about me?)
Larry,
The fair tax is quite unlike the Flat Tax. The Fair Tax bill is a plan to eliminate the income tax and create a consumption (embedded sales) tax. There's a book, appropriately titled "The Fair Tax," by Neal Boortz and John (Joseph?) Linder that fully outlines the plan.
Something of interest is that everyone, regardless of income, would a receive a check every month that covered the tax on essential items (food, clothing, etc.) based on the number of members in the household.
There's obviously more to it, but those are the bare bones. I would recommend picking up a copy of the book. It seems like a wonderful way to help the working poor take home more money and start saving towards their future.
What are your initial thoughts?
EDIT: It looks Baron beat me to it! His summary is more than sufficient! However, the new price of Coke would still be about $5.00 AFTER tax. So people will be bringing home more money while paying the same for most good.
Baron, come and sit with the hundreds of people who will move thru our place this week. Survey them, talk to them, hear their stories. Read David Shipler's new book, Working Poor: Invisible in America. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's classic Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America.
Possibly I misunderstood your point. I thought I heard you saying that the poor are not in a position to have good paying jobs because they drank, did drugs, partyed, etc. Is that not what you said?
If you said that, the burden of proof is with you. Where are your studies? Where are your reports?
I don't want to debate with you unless we are going somewhere with this.
Larry, you said, "I don't want to debate with you unless we are going somewhere with this."
I could not agree more!
Those curly things at the end of the phrases in my first comment are called question marks. Question marks denote inquiry. The point of my first comment was to inquire into why people are poor. You, instead of telling me why people are poor, thereby refuting my final statement that (most of the time) poor is a choice, chose to attack me as an individual.
Then, I asked you essentially two things: (1) How does my position in life have any impact on the merits of my argument, and (2) Why do you think you know anything about me?
Instead of anwswering any number of the questions I have posed, you recommend I read a couple of books and then recommend shutting down the conversation.
That doesn't substitute for argument where I come from, but then, we actually try to solve problems where I come from. We don't attack the speaker instead of the argument.
Okay, Baron. Let's continue.
I await the statistical evidence that would support the following claim that you make in your first post:
"The point is that poor is (in the vast majority of cases) a choice. It may not be obvious, but it is the result of decades of decision making."
Upon what do you base this claim? It is your claim. As I already said, the burden of proof is with you.
Baron,
Baron, please understand I'm not attacking you personally; I'm debating what I see written here.
It seems that you have not spent very much time among the poor. I'm not going to pretend to know you, but your arguments are centered on stereotypes, not studies. It is true that some people living in poverty have made poor decisions that have led to their current state. However, it is also true that government, churches and Christians have failed to provide the assistance necessary to break the poverty cycle. (*Please note that I don't feel that it is the government's responsibility to take care of the poor. I don't want to lose my conservative merit badge with this post!*)
There are no merits to your position as you haven't clearly stated a position. You merely ask (loaded?) questions then get upset when Larry says that your questions are not valid based on the fact that they are, for lack of a better word, ignorant. For many, being poor is no more a choice than being born. They didn't choose their parents, they didn't choose their circumstance.
You're complaining that Larry is attacking you, but you're attacking Larry with sarcastic comments like: "Those curly things at the end of the phrases in my first comment are called question marks. Question marks denote inquiry." This blog has been a freeflow of different ideas since I've been reading it, and logical, civil discussion is more productive than sarcastic, personal attacks.
"The poor you will always have with you..." Mt. 26:11.
As you can see from this study (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/pov/new29_100_01.htm) 12.7% of the US is "in poverty." Without a high school diploma, that rate jumps up to 21.8%. With a high school diploma, that rate dips to 11.9%. With some college, it drops to 8.5%, and with at least a four year degree, it becomes a miniscule 4.3%.
As you can see from this study (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/pov/new31_100_003_01.htm)
12.7% of people between age 16 and 24 are in poverty. Not surprisingly, that is the rate as the national average. (see study, supra.) However, when there are no children to account for, the poverty rate drops to 9.0%. When you add a child, the rate climbs to 12.5%. Two children bumps it all the way to 18.1%.
As you can see from this study (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/pov/new31_100_004_01.htm), not having a spouse can increase the likelihood of being poor as well. In fact, the total poverty rate for single head of households is 33.5%! Compare that figure to the same aged single people without children rate, which is only 6.1%. If you add two or more children to the single head of household, the rate goes to an eye-popping 50.2%!!
Based solely on these three studies, one can conclude that three poor decisions increase the likelihood of being poor: (1) not finishing education, (2) having children young, and (3) being a single mother/father.
Now, could you please tell me how my socio-economic background impacts my ability to read and interpret these numbers?
Baron, where in these statistics you just cited is there an indication of a decision?
Anonymous,
No. There was no indication of a decision. It is highly possible that the statistics are a result of people being bound and gagged, forced to drop out of high school, raped to have children (more than one child in many instances), all without having ever made a choice.
I suppose it is possible.
However, another possibility exists. It is also possible that people make poor decisions in high school and choose to drop out. It is also possible that people choose to have concentual sex, and then choose not to marry their partner when a pregnancy results.
Which do you think is more likely?
Baron, just out of curiousity, what is your background? What motivates your comments about the poor?
A couple of thoughts:
I do not doubt your statistics, but I doubt your conclusions about their cause. You offer no evidence to support it.
Choice, and therefore agency, to my mind is one of the basic building blocks of human dignity. Poverty is sustained by a lack of choice, and it can rob those who live in it of hope, and in this case, dignity and respect.
I choose to be inspired when I work among the poor and when I have lived among the poor, even though the factors which limit their choices can seem overwhelming and discouraging.
It seems so obvious to you that teenagers should stay in school, not get pregnant, and maintain a strong family structure. Can you not think of reasons why these seemingly logical decisions would not make sense to someone living in poverty? Why perhaps the best--and most terrible--decision they would have to make involves leaving a bad family situation? Or, dropping out to take a job to help support their family?
You are right to be repulsed by poverty. It is a tragedy. But to place blame upon the poor misses the point entirely.
I don't know who you are or why you are so angry, but I would urge you to log off, stand up, and go volunteer at a social service agency with an open heart and mind.
Baron, if you are interested in the theology back of Jesus' statement you must do two things. 1) Understand the Hebrew scripture back of his words--he is quoting Deuteronomy--see my post of January 18, 2005. 2) Read the context and understand his opponents and their real motives.
The question here is very often why do low income people trend in certain directions. This is what is often learned and experienced by actually knowing them.
People like my very privileged children enjoyed all kinds of support systems, as did I, that compensate for bad choices in ways that are totally unknown to the poor.
It is like a 100 yard dash. My kids start the race at yard 95. The children of the poor start somewhere outside the stadium. It is just a fact.
Victories of "personal responsibility" are off set a bit by the compensations built into lives of affluence as over against the realities of poverty. This is why when someone actually makes it out, it is regarded as a miracle and a cause for great celebration.
I will address James, Anonymous, and Larry in that order.
James,
Why is my background so important to you? Unlike the other commenters, your fixation on it is without abatement. I do not understand how it impacts the merits of my position.
Anonymous,
I have always felt it a waste of time to engage in meaningful conversation with someone unwilling to reveal their identity. With that said, I will address your comment.
I may seem angry, but do not be deceived at the object of my anger. I am not angry with the poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am angry with the white leaders of the past who took it upon themselves to destroy the poverty-stricken family and assure they would never escape from their unfortunate condition.
Our country has set up a system that rewards failure and punishes success. Worse, it rewards poor decision making. Until 1996, our country ran a system that gave "raises" to women who had more children out of wed-lock and promised to provide for them in perpetuity. Then, we yanked the carpet out from under them with welfare reform. While it was a much needed step, it only exposed the failures that were three decades in the making. Now, many poor, single parents struggle in full time jobs with multiple starving children at home.
I AM angry, but I am not angry with the poor. I am angry with the "war on poverty" and how it destroyed millions of families and assured millions of children they would grow up impoverished.
Larry,
I hope you had time to read my comment to anonymous and didn't skip down to your name. :)
I understand I was taking the Lord out of context, but my point did not need context. There will always be poor people. The idea that we can somehow eliminate it is ridiculous. No country has been able to sustain an economy with under 5% unemployment, and no country has been able to sustain an economy with under 10% poverty rates. It is more complex than I can address in this forum, but suffice it to say history has proven that to be true.
I like your race analogy, but I do not believe it is true. The problem has more than one dimension. I like to envision both starting at the same beginning mark, but one racer wearing shackles and handcuffs. We are all equal under the law, and thus we all start at the same place. However, some of us come with shackles of the system that has destroyed our chance to run a fair race.
I have had many experiences with the poor, and I am astonished that questioning the reasons for poverty would raise so many questions about my background. I think that says more about your paradigm than mine.
With that said, let me share two particularly touching stories of people I know well. First, Gerry (I changed his name) was born into a black family in the poorest county in Alabama. He had two parents at home and several brothers and sisters. His father worked a job that paid little more than minimum wage and his mother didn't work.
Gerry's brothers and sisters dropped out of school, made poor decisions, and barely get by off of handouts. Gerry stayed in school, graduated, went to J.P. Tech and got a certificate in air conditioning repair while working 25 hours a week on the third shift at UPS.
Today, Gerry is a good friend of mine. Whenever I am in Montgomery, Gerry and I go bowling or just hangout. I respect him more than I respect myself. He is a fine man and will make a wonderful husband and father.
Second, there is Jenny (again, name changed). I met Jenny when she was 15. She lived in Trenholm Court housing projects and went to an all black inner city school. While she was growing up, Jenny's mother had men into the house, and several of them raped her and her sisters and beat her mother.
Jenny was a star on the basketball team, but had to give it up when she got pregnant at 16. She dropped out of school and had the baby. She hated not knowing her father, so she married the child's father and moved to inner city Toledo with him. Today, she has two children. She is still married. She got her GED and is attending classes at the University of Toledo. Her husband changes oil at the Jiffy Lube.
Like Gerry, Jenny will do fine in life. Even though they started the race with shackles and handcuffs, they were able to overcome by making good decisions, even if they made some bad ones along the way.
I could go on and on. Due to my wife's love for the inner city children, I have been exposed to others as well. I often think of Isaac, a four year old I met that couldn't say any words yet because no one spoke to him. His mother was on drugs and he was placed into foster care. I came to love his mother despite her faults. One of the most painful memories of her is when I had to go pick up a car we let her borrow. I had to go pick it up at the house of the married man who was pimping her.
I am not angry at these people. I loved each and every one of them. I am angry at the policy makers who assure the next generation will not be any better off. I am mad at the ones who came before us and trapped them in that condition. And I get upset with the modern day apologists, who would rather make excuses than get to the root of the problem.
I love them, and I love you guys. Please don't question my motives or past, and I will not question yours.
Lovingly,
Baron
Baron~
What about the people who did make some poor decisions along the way, though? Are they doomed to always suffer because of those poor decisions they may have made years ago? ...or even recently?
What about the people who don't have enough support and are overwhelmed and unsure of how to get into the "right" system, as Gerry did? I do know some people like Gerry who are determined to make their way...and they will in spite of anything anyone says or does to them. ...But they are the exceptions.
What about the people, like Jenny, who are trying to do the right thing but can't make ends meet because of some former choices/circumstances and because Jiffy Lube doesn't pay for a college education as well as a child's daily needs?
I do know quite a few people who have chosen drugs--selling and/or using--as a way of life...and are struggling and very unsure of how to get out of the cycle they have created for themselves. However, I also know of people who didn't use drugs and party, as you suggest, but maybe had a baby too young or did not have the foresight to go to college. I don't see how it is fair to condemn them for life. If we're speaking in Bible terms, Jesus didn't do that to us. "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." John 8:7
As to your comment about them drinking and partying during their formative years (the way I read what you said is that they deserve what they get...they are reaping the consequences of their actions)...what bothers me about that is that we suggest that poor people should have made better decisions and they wouldn't be in the position they are in. However, I knew plenty of people in high school and college who were drinking and partying (some who still do...and I'm 33!), but their socioeconomic status, their connections, and their position in society did not allow them to fail. Often, they have worked their way through the court system (with a slap on the wrist) and still have good jobs--despite what they did...and what some of them still do.
Janet,
I don't know the answer to all of your questions, and anyone who says they do is deceptive.
What I do know is that folks like Jenny and Gerry can overcome in the face of serious uphill battles. Do they have to struggle more than you and I do? You bet! But I have to struggle more than the son of a doctor, who has to struggle more than the son of a hot-shot stock broker, who has to struggle more than Paris Hilton. Such is life. I don't perceive myself as a victim, despite not having a Hilton as a daddy.
If I make a poor decision, I will feel the ramification for years longer than Paris Hilton. So does the doctor's son. He has to try twice as hard to keep his nose clean, and I have to try twice as hard as him. That means I come to the starting line of life with 4 times the baggage of Paris Hilton.
There will never be a system where we all come to the line with equal weights attached to us. That is why I don't hate the poor person. I am not angry with him at all.
I will remain angry at those, prior and present, who continue to promote policies which keep people in poverty. But until something dramatic changes, the only thing the poor should be told is how to overcome. The poor need to be pointed in the right direction. It is not damaging to simply point out the fact that they start the race at a disadvantage; it becomes damaging when they are encouraged to find identity in that fact.
It has always been my approach to tell them the truth. If they make a mistake, life will treat them worse than if I did. Therefore, it is important they work harder, stay cleaner, and save more than you or I need to in order to succeed.
There is no shame in hard work. Stories litter history in which particular groups had to overcome the disadvantage given them by another. Again, such is life.
I am encouraged by the Clarence Thomases, Condi Rices, Thomas Sowells, Ken Chenaults, and Robert Johnsons of the world. I am not saying every poor kid is a future political or business powerhouse, but I think they should be the role models for the poor in America - people who overcame poverty and racism to achieve the greatest this country can offer.
Baron,
First off, thank you - whether you intended to or not, you changed your style and made this a discussion that's interesting to me.
I guess I'm curious as to your thoughts - the people you describe made pretty impressive decisions (even if Jenny made an initial mistake, her dedication to family was and remains quite admirable).
So let's look at the other side - someone who indulged excessively in all kinds of debauchery as soon as they were able to. Blew off high school, never considered college, suddenly found themselves with lots of financial responsibility and no means, and still pursued self-gratification to no end. I'm going to assume this person's poor, because I went to school with the rich kids doing it, and they got impressively good jobs with an even more impressively bad record. We're also going to assume they're not athletes, as society makes tremendous allowances for excelling in athletics, and colleges take care of their athlete alums.
Now, at 40, this person wakes up, realizes he has a family and is wasting what God gave him, and wants to learn to live life the right way. At this point, he'll be lucky to get a job that can help pay his own expenses, let alone his family's, and can't afford the time or the low-paying "entry-level" jobs that offer upward mobility.
Yes, he's wasted a lot of years that probably closed a lot of doors. But should he be stuck in that position with no way out? Does he deserve to live the rest of his life as a result of choices that began as a teenager?
I say this because I'd hate to have some of my more memorable adolescent moments brought up in every job interview, in an introduction to everyone I ever meet, in everything I'm unable to provide for my family - and I'm only 29 so much closer to those choices.
Even if you think it is fair to suffer the consequences of those decisions, is it fair to have a society in which people with family connections or athletic prowess or even intellect have opportunities to recover - not to excel, but to stay afloat - and others don't because of the timing of their decisions?
I only ask because the man I mentioned before is currently President of the United States because of the chances his connections afforded him. I don't begrudge him that success, but ask why others who squander parts of their lives don't deserve a society that similarly pardons them.
Charles,
Thank you. Whether you intended to or not, you turned this conversation from a productive discussion about the reasons for poverty and the policies surrounding into a typical liberal substitution for argument - character assassination. Hey, when you can't stand up to the argument, and you run out of ideas, attack Bush! Yeah, Charles, that's a good argument!
If someone else wants to discuss the merits of Charles' comments, I will be glad to, but I will not stoop to his level and discuss it with him.
Larry/Janet/et al,
In the same way that Baron has provided descriptions to people he knows that are poor and the situations that life has given them, I would be interested in similar descriptions of the people you know, and how they are being unjustly treated. I do not request this in order to create a competition of who knows the better or more realistic person of poverty. I ask this because I want to learn, I want to know something about the people you come in contact with. What prevents them from making good choices? How is it that someone not have the foresight to go to college? I am not trying to be argumentative here, I really what to know why someone would grow up and not ever learn that college is a requirement for success.
Baron,
Funny - if you thought I was engaging in character assassination, you already stooped to my level.
It wasn't even intended as a shot at Bush - I'm glad he was able to recover from his poor past decisions. As a Texas resident, I've probably voted for him more times than you have, even if I disagree with him now.
I was using him as a highly visible example that society enables people with some assets to recover, and not others, and ask why we shouldn't look at changing society to give everyone the same opportunity. Throw in a Kennedy or LBJ if you'd like a liberal example. So, if we use a liberal, what do you say to the points?
If you think people are using verbal tricks rather than making points, maybe you could try discussing people's points rather than their tricks (not to mention using your own) and set an example.
Charles
Charles,
My attack-fatigue has nothing to do with liberal or conservative designations. You probably have voted for Bush more than I have. I didn't vote for him the first time around, and I wouldn't have this time if Evan Bayh or Phil Bredesen had run (both of whom would earn my vote in 2008 over most of the Republicans I have heard mentioned).
I am particularly irked by character assassination based on lies. You ended your previous comment by saying, "I only ask because the man I mentioned before is currently President of the United States because of the chances his connections afforded him."
However, one look at "the man [you] mentioned before" reveals that you either are incapable of finding rudimentary facts or are a liar. For example, "the man [you] previously mentioned" had the following characteristics: "- someone who indulged excessively in all kinds of debauchery as soon as they were able to. Blew off high school, never considered college, suddenly found themselves with lots of financial responsibility and no means, and still pursued self-gratification to no end."
You then go on to describe the awakening: "Now, at 40, this person wakes up, realizes he has a family and is wasting what God gave him, and wants to learn to live life the right way."
Surely, you don't need me to point out that a person with these characteristics is not the current Commander in Chief.
But all of that is a sidetrack. The fact that you brought it up is evidence that you missed my point by miles.
My point is that some people are naturally going to have it easier than others. Remember my comparison of me, the doc's kid, and Paris Hilton? Add a kid from the project in there. Where is he? Worse off than me, sure. But what about in relation to a kid from Burma? North Korea?
Do you see my point? Yeah, things aren't perfect, but they will never be perfect. The point is that choices impact people differently. I don't want to waste your time (or mine) going back through everything I have already said, but all your questions from your last comment can be answered by re-reading my last few comments.
If I misinterpreted your Bush-crack, I am sorry. I just get so tired of the worthless substitutes for real discussion. It smacked of such an instance.
Baron,
We disagree in our assessment of Bush's life before and after he stopped drinking.
You're probably right - it seems unlikely we'll get a perfect society this side of Heaven. But does that excuse us in any way from trying to improve society as well as our individual efforts? Jesus never deals with people one-on-one - he talks to them, but invites them to join into his church and work together.
I'm not advocating a theocracy (free will's another valuable gift), but most of Christianity's recommendations are also good governance in a community of trust and respect. So why not work to make our communities more that way and help more people than we can ever meet and work with individually?
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your earlier comments about people's situations being a direct result of individual choice, but it seems like you're against governmental action on this. I don't think anyone's in favor of ineffective government action, but if there were effective options, would you be in favor of those?
Thanks for continuing the conversation!
Charles
Charles,
First, I will address your statement that "[w]e disagree in our assessment of Bush's life before and after he stopped drinking." I was addressing my previous comment specifically at your previous comment in which you stated he blew off high school, never considered college, etc.
That just isn't true. It is not a subject for agreement, it is historical fact. Not only did he complete college (at Yale), he had better grades than wordy John Kerry. Then, he graduated from Harvard with an MBA in arguably the most difficult MBA program in the country. You cannot choose to disagree with those facts. They are indisputable.
Did he benefit from his position in life? You bet. However, the biggest indicators of failure are not alcohol abuse, but single parenthood and lack of education. He suffered from neither.
Second, you astutely observe that I am not a fan of government action against poverty. I think it has destroyed millions of lives already, and I would like to kill the beast before it destroys more.
Then, you pose a question: "if there were effective options, would you be in favor of those?"
No. The reasons are complex, but I will boil them down to this: (1) I don't know that effective government options are possible and (2) the church is tasked with taking care of the poor; abdicating that responsibility is problematic for both the souls of the aid recipients and the Christians who rely on the government's force to carry out the mission of Christ.
Government has one role: To protect the individual from criminals and from government.
Baron,
Yes he completed college - you are correct that my exact example did not apply 100% to him. I don't know where you went to school, but even at a public university, there were students who only passed due to their parents' influence and even cash donations. I went to the business school - hopefully other departments/institutions are more idealistic, but I doubt it. Did you see no one admitted to/graduate from college that did nothing to get there? Check his own recollections of college - not classes, not achievement, but partying and networking. Check his professors' and classmates' recollections (business professors are notoriously conservative politically, so would be unlikely to fabricate bad press for him). Even at that point, privilege allowed him to make bad choices without sacrifice (probably similarly with Kerry and liberal icons as well). Then check his business record - maybe he tried really hard and just had bad luck, but very few alcoholics are in a position to take advantage of good or even neutral luck.
As I've said before, I'm not blaming him or even criticizing him beyond those whose bad choices had a greater impact on their lives, just using him as an example of someone whose bad decisions were at least partially negated by societal factors. Since we agree on the principle if not the example, I'd rather move back to the bigger picture and not continue discussing President Bush. Consider him and facts well-defended.
You mention the government should not take on the church's role. My take is that we're Christians in all we do, and in fact above all else we do. So if I'm at work in a secular job, I use that position like any other of God's gifts to do his will. In a democracy, where the government is of the people, why wouldn't we influence it to do what God wants all of society to do? Once again, not looking at theocracy, just helping people through any avenue available to us.
I was most interested in this statement: "However, the biggest indicators of failure are not alcohol abuse, but single parenthood and lack of education." I thought poverty was always the result of choices, but I've never heard of anyone who chose a single-parent family. How can you reconcile this with your original position? I've seen enough in your writing to believe you have a connection, but it's not apparent to me.
Charles
Brad,
In my experience, the answer to your question is very complex and something I'm not sure I can answer well in a blog. I could list kid after kid after kid. The problem is, the situations are so much bigger than trying to give you a little snapshot of their lives. And what is unreal is that, although I've known many of them for 10 years, I keep finding out more about the reality of their lives. Some of their consequences are lack of responsibility or bad choices...which have often been learned because of the lack of responsibility or bad choices of their parents. Some of their "consequences" happen just because they don't know how to navigate in the systems that are out there.
Let me attempt to give you one "snapshot" and if you are interested, I'd be happy to give you more. I don't want to clog the blog.
Sam--21 years old. His mother died of liver failure when he was around 15 or 16. His dad is a drug addict that hangs out on the street...that's where Sam has always had to go to find him. Sam lived with his sister through high school. She, too, uses drugs and is very unstable. Sam stopped going to school his junior year, I think partly because his family was moving around so much that the kids in the family kept having to change schools. Because his sister was strung out on drugs, she never took the time to re-enroll them and the schools wouldn't let them enroll by themselves. Plus, they had to have an address to switch schools and they never seemed to have an address because they were always moving. When I caught up with Sam, he was living in an economy apartment with 21 other people. Sam's bed was the bathtub (Sam is about 6' or 6'1"). I did get Sam re-enrolled...only to find out a few weeks later that he wasn't going to school. Sam has since been to jail...and then prison...for selling drugs. When I was taking him to a drug treatment center one time (as a part of his parole), I was talking to him about trying to get a job or his GED or something. He looked at me in all seriousness and told me that drugs are all he has known since he was 6 years old.
I learned from Sam that day that just as working a legitimate job is comfortable for me and a known way to survive and prosper, selling drugs is comfortable for him and helps him survive financially (though even that does not make him a good living). I'm sure Sam has heard about college...seen people who go to college (though I doubt if he knows many personally)...but those people, in his mind, are not like him. They are people who have grown up in different situations than him. Even though he floats from job to job never finding one he really enjoys (because it's all warehouse or some type of unstimulating work that he isn't interested in), I don't think he believes in himself enough to do something different. And, now that he is 21 and gets further removed from school, college, etc., he doesn't see how getting a GED is going to affect him. He will still have to work these manual, boring jobs. A lot of the older (20-35 year old) guys I know who never went to college feel stuck and feel like "it's too late" for them.
There's so much more I could say about Sam's situation of why he, and other guys like him, have given up...or never really tried in the first place: the education system (or lack thereof), the survival of trying to put food on the table since he was 6 because he didn't have parents who were providing for him, the fear of navigating in a system he knows nothing about (the college system, the job system, etc.)....
Does that help at all? It's a long description and only one...and not even complete. Like I said, the complexities of each person's situation is much bigger than a blog entry.
Charles,
You say, "I've never heard of anyone who chose a single-parent family."
Anyone who chose to have a child without a married father chose to have a single parent family. Perhaps they would have rather had a father around, but the reality is they chose to engage in behavior (sex) in which the consequence is a single parent family.
For the rich kid, that choice is not as painful as the poor kid. The rich kid's folks will take care of her and her baby. The poor kid has no such safety net.
Are their some people who have the married father die? Sure. Leave on his own? Sure. Are there people who have a child because they were raped? Sure. But when a sixteen year old gets pregnant, it is usually a choice.
It is crucial we stop making excuses for these people and starting pre-emptively trying to stop this behavior. Part of the solution is to remove factors that alleviate the pain of choosing to have a baby when you are poor, sixteen, and unmarried.
Your comments on church/government concern me. You said, "In a democracy, where the government is of the people, why wouldn't we influence it to do what God wants all of society to do? Once again, not looking at theocracy, just helping people through any avenue available to us."
I have many disagreements with that statement, but I will focus on a few in particular.
There was a time when poor people came to church because they were hungry. The church fed them, both spiritually and physically, and they loved God in return, because they made the connection between the food and his people. Today, instead of loving God, they love the government.
That is a simplified version, but I could expand it to include that the spiritual health of the church is impacted as well. Why are there rich churches with no heart for the poor? "Because that's the government's job, not mine," is a popular sentiment in many rich churches.
Imagine if the focus on the poor did not go from church to government in the 60's. Would there still be that same sentiment? I can't answer that, but my guess is that it would be much smaller than it is today.
Our churches have become selfish and disconnected from the poor. Why? Because they don't have to get down and dirty with them. Instead of giving directly to the poor, they funnel their share through the government and feel like they have done their share.
In short, government help is bad for both the giver and receiver.
Sorry this is short and modified.
Baron,
Sorry - I misunderstood, I thought you meant being the child in a single-parent family.
As to the rest, people looking for an excuse find an excuse. I doubt anyone who cares truly believes they're doing their part to help their neighbor through taxes, although it's a great rationalization. I think we both agree churches should be on the front lines, working with any and all comers to help them in every way. Why not have government helping in addition? Why does it have to be one or the other? People will consider their duty to the poor done with their contributions to a church with the same detachment as they pay their taxes.
Charles
Janet,
Thanks for the description. I appreciate it.
I disagree about government and church being able to help together. Usually, churches help people on a contingent basis (or at least they probably should). For example, a church might open the food bank for a person for a while with no strings attached, but eventually, they should want to see some indication the person is moving in the right direction. Otherwise, the church is just rewarding the bad behavior and choices the person is making. The same goes with most other church aid.
The government, on the other hand, does not monitor progress and demand accountability in the same manner. The government check will show up whether or not the person is on drugs, beating their children, skipping work, etc.
Individual accountability is what leads to discipleship. Discipleship is what saves souls, not food.
Food should be viewed as a vehicle to save the souls of the starving, not merely a method of alleviating suffering in this "vapor" of a life. I would far rather a saved person die of starvation and exposure than a fat person die and go to hell.
That is just me. I don't see how it works any other way...
The focus should be on eternity, not the here and now. When the focus becomes the suffering in this life, instead of the afterlife, those opposed to Christianity and its message have triumphed. They have successfully derailed the message of saving lost souls.
What I can't get past is that part of God's nature is justice. And one of the church's objectives is to give its life up in service for the world. This means doing everything, legislatively or not, to ensure that people are treated justly and fairly. The church (especially the Church of Christ) has not had a very good tract record in this, I hate to say. I'm not holding out for it to claim justice as a primary value. If Christians are lobbying for the unborn and for the use of cells in science, shouldn't Christians be lobbying even harder for the lives and well-being of the "least" among us?
We absolutely have to worry about the "here and now", Baron. We are a transformed people. We care about what God cares about -- justice.
Hey, y'all, if anyone is interested, I'm thinking you can put this Baron dude in perspective by checking out his blog page (http://www.thebaron.us/).
When you get there, just scroll way on down to the "About Me" section.
Interesting stuff. Smart guy. Just never wrong, if you believe him!
:)
Thanks Anonymous!
I am not much of a self-promoter, but I will take it where I can get it. I encourage people to check out my site. Take my "About Me" section for what it is...
Steve, Jr.,
I guess I don't see where Jesus is all that concerned with justice. I see the primary function of his message to be the eternal, not temporal, life. Pluck out your eye, cut off your hand - that kind of stuff doesn't sound like someone who is too concerned with the quality of this life.
With that said, is the J-man a big fan of injustice? Probably not. Perhaps you can help me out by pointing to the places where Jesus' passion for justice overcame his passion for salvation.
Thanks.
Baron, I think I can point you to several key texts that reveal Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God to be vitally connected to the realization of justice in human relationship on the earth. Remember he taught us to pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
Someone rightly noted that the only way to heaven is through the earth. That being said, check out these passages from just the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 1:51-53--sort of a turning of the economic tables if you will.
3:10-14--the message of John was concerned with equity.
4:14-21--in his first sermon he links his ministry to the provisions of the Year of Jubilee that included freedom to slaves and redistribution of property rights
6:20-26--sermon on the plain--pretty powerful reversals here for rich and poor--see 1:51ff above
7:18-23--Jesus' answer to John who had become a political prisoner and wondered if it was really worth giving up his life for this Jesus guy--note role of poor here and understand that the maladies listed are all related to poverty.
10:25-37--story of Good Samaritan--no salvation here--only intervention to save a life and a plan for spreading mercy on the earth.
12:13-34--this is a challenging text! Watch out for unbridled capitalism here, Baron! What is done on earth defines what we value, as well as our values.
14:12-14--consider this one the next time you throw a dinner party--as a matter of fact, share it with your church's fellowship committee!
16--just read the entire chapter--it is all about wealth, poverty and how that relates to where you will be spending forever eventually, but again the point here is the poor and their earthly plight as a huge part of the message of the Kingdom of God.
18:9-14--thought I would throw this one in for good measure--I believe the country, beginning with me (!), needs to read this one again and again.
18:18-30--here is how to get to the heaven you are so concerned about.
19:1-10--read this sweet story about wee little Zacchaeus and see that the point is that when people really know God, they get on with doing justice.
Is that enough for starters?
Seriously, I beg you to consider these things. The fact that so few people even know these texts (and hundreds more) I blame on the church and its leaders.
If nothing else, read them for me. Maybe then you will understand me a bit better.
I appreciate you, Baron.
Larry,
Thank you for your effort. It is not surprising that you chose passages from Luke to respond to my request. Perhaps more than any other book, Luke deals specifically with the poor. Indeed, I have heard that Luke is the standard text when preparing for mission work in poor areas.
With that said, perhaps I do not know the meaning of “justice” in the way that you use it. The passages you recommended tended to solidify my position that Jesus called upon his followers to voluntarily care for the poor so that God could be glorified. This is consistent with the eternal purpose of saving souls.
In those passages, I do not see Jesus calling upon non-Christians to have their property seized and given to the poor. To the contrary, every passage deals with voluntary support.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what your definition of justice is. My definition involves people “getting what they deserve.” In other words, people who do something wrong get punished; likewise, people who are wronged get compensated.
Do you have another definition in mind? Those passages certainly do not address people who are either wronged or committing wrongs. Instead, they address the poor and the call for followers to voluntarily take care of the poor.
For the sake of brevity, I will address only a couple of specific texts. I chose these because, based on your comments, you seemed particularly concerned with them.
Luke 6:20-26 –
Everything in that passage deals with eternity and how “great is your reward in Heaven.” That passage is one I had in mind to support my position. I was shocked to see you use it for yours.
Luke 12:13-34 –
You used this passage to warn me about “unbridled capitalism.” However, this passage supports and strengthens my position. This passage urges followers to share their earnings with the poor. It points out that it is foolish to try to save it for yourself. Again, I see no support for prying into anyone’s wallet without their consent. Christian giving is voluntary.
The rest are pretty much the same. Every one of those passages dealt with followers voluntarily giving to the poor.
I agree with you that our churches are by and large inept at fulfilling this duty. As much as I read it, I can’t find a single instance in the bible of a church giving to themselves. I see churches giving to other churches, and I see people called to give to the poor.
I am on your side in that churches should not be building fancy buildings and gyms for their members. That money should be used to feed and clothe the poor. Anyone who has known me for more than five minutes knows how much damage I think churches are doing to the souls of their members by misusing money. It is not just bad stewardship; I believe it is not Christianity. Instead it is bible and building worship - not saving religion.
With that said, I think our generation needs a prophet that will draw our churches collective attention to the problem. Using the government to do the Lord’s work is not the answer. The Lord doesn’t end up getting glory, and the likelihood of salvation for both the giver and recipient are not improved; in many cases, it may be hindered. Instead, our churches should stop building idols and temples dedicated to man. They should instead give almost every dollar away to the poor. That is Christian giving; giving so that you will benefit by bigger and better buildings is not.
I appreciate your heart and frustration, and I believe we share more in common than you might think.
Thanks, again.
Baron, I agree with you--we do share much in common and I know that if we could meet and talk, while we likely would never agree on many fundatmentals, I would appreciate you even more than I already do.
We obviously approach these texts much differently in terms of mindset and paradigm. My view assumes that the people in the texts are poor due to a system that is wired against them. For example, Zacchaeus (Luke 19).
The other assumption that I make has to do with the amazing advantages of our current historic context and the opportunities afforded to us by this democracy that we enjoy. Under our system money is lifted out of our wallets constantly--often to fund things and actions we don't agree with completely. But we have the chance to craft a fairer society and a more level playing field.
Lots of tax dollars flow uphill in this country. Are you concerned about that? I just believe that we have the ability to take the principles of Jesus and apply them as moral norms to budget documents which in my view also can be moral or immoral.
Our ability to disagree is a blessing. And those with the most votes set the agenda.
Thanks for your comments.
If you are ever in Indy, Louisville, or some other city within a stones-throw of Bloomington, give me a call. I don't have any plans on making it to the Lone Star State anytime soon...
Post a Comment