Understanding Poverty in America
by Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
From the introduction:
Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau counts the number of "poor" persons in the U.S. In 2005, the Bureau found 37 million "poor" Americans. Presidential candidate John Edwards claims that these 37 million Americans currently "struggle with incredible poverty." Edwards asserts that America's poor, who number "one in eight of us…do not have enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need," and are forced to live in "terrible" circumstances.However, an examination of the living standards of the 37 million persons, whom the government defines as "poor," reveals that what Edwards calls "the plague"of American poverty might not be as "terrible" or "incredible" as candidate Edwards contends.
U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
Just like global warming, this too was a fraud. The problem, however, is it's been cited as truth for so long, by so many supposed "experts" the general population will not believe this report... even though it comes from the U.S. Senate.
Another article from CFP:
How the Republican Party Committed National Suicide
--By JB Williams, Canadian Free Press
Like it or not, the BIG TENT is collapsing. You can’t invite liberals to your table without inviting their ideologies along. Try this at home with your liberal neighbors if you think I’m wrong on this. They will be happy to eat your food and drink your wine, while they tell you all about the progressive benefits of socialism. They won’t shut up until you stop inviting them for dinner.
Yet this is what the Republican Party leadership decided to do years ago. Invite liberals across the aisle into the fold under the BIG TENT open society philosophy whereby all ideas are welcome if not equal, even when they aren’t.
Today, the base of the party is trying to figure out if or how it can wrestle back control of their party from the dinner guest they invited to the table years ago....
34 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well now, if it's the case - as these recent elections show - that the more strident "conservatives" such as Bush and those who think that Bush is a liberal... if it's the case that these conservatives are just a minority of the Republican party and, therefore, a minority of the nation, then what are the Republicans to do?
Keep appeasing the extreme Right and thereby losing elections?
That post's in the works...
You suspect that you know something that I don't? You suspect that you know something that some 70-80% of the nation doesn't?
And you're not sharing it?
How can we learn except that we're taught....?
And yet what I know is in its final stage of coalescence... it's not ready... I'm still ruminating
Conservative philosophy I thought was based on prudence and cautiousness, seeking the most practical solutions to problems, while also trying to limit governmental growth. That was conservatism before Newt Gingrich and the 106th-7th Congress.
Today's true conservative philosophy derives from policies:
1) Build a 700 mile border fence and deport illegal aliens.
2) Stop abortions and reduce teen sex.
3) Kill terrorists and anyone else who even looks askance at the US.
So what you end up with is a philosophy of nationalism and puritanism. NOT the philosophy of Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush.
Your comments support my underlying proposition, that misunderstanding conservatism is what repels.
"1) Build a 700 mile border fence and deport illegal aliens.
2) Stop abortions and reduce teen sex.
3) Kill terrorists and anyone else who even looks askance at the US."
#1 is a result of our belief in the rule of law. There are immigration laws now in place and those who wish to ignore them need to be deported and kept out. Our sovereignty is abused by these invaders and we preferred it was respected.
#2 is a result of our facing the fact about when life begins, rather than trying to muddy the issue in order to prevent having our sexual styles cramped. Seems only mature and responsible. In addition, we believe everyone is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. As to the teen sex issue, we prefer that parents properly raise their kids to be more self-disciplined and know that expectations are essential in raising upstanding kids to adulthood. Libs are wrong to abdicate their responsibilities with such notions as "they're gonna do it anyway".
#3 is based upon the knowledge that radical Islamists are willing to die, make that eager to die, for their beliefs and their destruction is what is required to eliminate the threat to us all. As to the second part, total nonsense. We understand we can't please everyone, but if our foreign friends can't understand the righteousness of our decisions and policies, it's their problem. We can only try to explain ourselves and from there it's up to them.
So you have shown in those three points how little you understand current conservative philosophy. When GOP politicians forget what it means, you get Nov. of '06.
Agreed. But you encourage his error by answering his argument. Conservatism is still what it was under Reagan. Newt didn't change that; in fact Newt gave conservative philosophy definement. If anything has changed it is conservative politicians who have compromised the message for the sake of comity. There can be no comity with a philosophy that cares nothing about defending the Constitution and the laws of this nation, cares nothing about human life, and cares nothing about defending the nation our Constitution defines.
Further, by virtue of Ben's list he demonstrates three failings of liberal philosophy, as described above...
1) It is soft on the Constitution and enforcing law. 2) It's not interested in family values, and 3) It's not interested in defending the nation our Constitution-- which they also do not defend --defines.
As to no. 1, liberalism sees the Constitution as an archaic document which doesn't address the expediences and niceties of the modern world. It's solution is to CHANGE the Constitution to the point that it is no longer recognizable-- until it becomes the American embodiment of Marx's "Manifesto.
As to no. 2, Abortion is not held in disdain by liberal philosophy because liberalism doesn't recognize an authority higher than The State. God has His place, but not in the hallowed halls of government-- whatever the Constitution says to the contrary. Abortion is a constitutional right in liberalism's brave new world, where personal responsibility is managed and mitigated by The State. Morals are whatever the The State defines as moral within the context of liberal philosophy; which has been shown to celebrate and defend the destruction of human life, rather than defend it.
As to no. 3, In light of no. 2, it is a wonder how liberalism can, with a straight face, defend the killing of tens of millions of unborn Americans, but can't stomach the idea of warring against Wahhabiist Islam; which wants to conquer the world, including the U.S., and bring it all under dictatorial Shari'a law.
Liberalism is little more than "Insanity" wrapped in an attractive package.
1. Liberals see illegal immigrants as a small threat to the American system. We recognize that America has desirable economic conditions for central americans. We also feel that the logistical challenge of tightly securing our southern border would be a waste of resources.
2. We see sexuality and related life issues as the entire province of the individual, within the bounds reason. Government and Schools should take no position to approve, disapprove or dis-encourage my personal life style as long as I am not harming another.
3. Liberals view the current war in Iraq as ill conceived, and being prosecuted with no long term benefit. The higher we rev the Iraq war the more America is hated in the middle east. Liberals would prefer more subtle and effective measures being taken.
I will be civil if you will. Don't call Marian a lunatic.
"Gandhi was most concerned that men not live as slaves to their fear or anger or impatience. In that sense, he was deeply, classicly conservative. He knew that culture would change government given enough time. He knew that men can't control events, but they can control themselves.
Most of us don't want to believe that. We don't want to wait and suffer. We want to see and enjoy what we've done. Violence is faster. It's the easiest way to feel the fruits of our wills. It's also the only way to make monsters suffer, which, is a petty and meaningless impulse if we think, as Gandhi did, of any individual lifetime on earth as a passing moment in relation to eternity."
It seemed germane to the conversation...
To clarify, since you obviously didn't grasp what I said... you're smarter than this, by the way...
"Liberalism is little more than "Insanity" wrapped in an attractive package."
That was Liberalism, not Liberals. People can, and often do, subscribe to ideologies knowing full well the consequences of said ideologies. Many more fall for it thoughtlessly ignorant of what their beliefs entail. That being said, Marion is a kind and gentle soul, and dragging her into this should have been beneath you. Marion doesn't get onto this blog at every opportunity and insult not only me and my faith, but my intelligence as well. You, however, do. But I'm a big boy, and I can take it.
Shunting all that aside, Liberalism embraces all the things I described. LIBERALS vary from person to person. I'm not describing individuals here, only two diametrically opposed ideologies (in terms of current political climate).
If you want to take it personal, that's fine-- you should. I certainly would if our roles in this little melodrama were reversed.
But as to #1: "We also feel that the logistical challenge of tightly securing our southern border would be a waste of resources."
Hence, you prove my point. Liberalism doesn't care about defending the Constitution AND the laws that are supported by our Constitution.
As to #2: a) "We see sexuality and related life issues as the entire province of the individual, within the bounds reason."
Apparently in the hallowed halls of Liberalism it is "unreasonable" to ask mothers to not consent to partial-birth abortion. It had to take an outright ban of the practice to make Liberalism concede the fight to murder new-born infants in the name of "convenience". Again you prove my point. Liberalism doesn't care to defend the most defenseless form of human life.
b) "Government and Schools should take no position to approve, disapprove or dis-encourage my personal life style as long as I am not harming another."
What hypocrisy! "Don't you dare tell us liberals how to live our lives, but by g-d, you keep your stinking creches off public property. Don't you dare tell your children it's okay to pray over their lunches at school, cause it's not! We don't care WHAT the Constitution says!"
As to #3: a) "Liberals view the current war in Iraq as ill conceived..."
And yet Liberals voted to fight the war in Iraq... Actually demanded of the Republican majority that a public vote be held so they could be seen as "patriotic" in the wake of 9/11. Now, they hypocritically castigate Republicans and "BushCo" for prosecuting an "ill-conceived" war.
b) "...with no long term benefit."
If it turns out that this war HAD no long term benefit, Liberals will be equally culpable. They have the power they so desperately crave. Let them stop funding the war and shut up. Ahhh, but they won't do that, will they? Why? Because getting reelected trumps conscience for ALL political persuasions (though some few politicians manage to escape this trap).
To quote Charlie Reese from a previous post:
"I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist."
c) "The higher we rev the Iraq war the more America is hated in the middle east"
Hated more by those who already hate America? Hated more by those who want to see America destroyed? Why would Liberals care if America is hated by people who ALREADY hate us and want to see us all dead? Because Liberals hate the idea of a strong America; one which defends itself and weaker nations who ask for help. Liberals defend the rights of bullies while castigating those who stand up to them. Just like Liberals defend death row murders, yet ripe innocent children from the supposed safety of their mother's wombs. Again, you prove my point: Liberalism doesn't care about defending this nation from "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
d) "Liberals would prefer more subtle and effective measures being taken."
Like what? More toothless and ineffective UN sanctions? How many times was Saddam told to cease and desist? 16? 17? At what point does a father who threatens the belt, finally decide to use it? If the UN can't back up their threats with action, they prove themselves to be the worthless, ineffective body they are. The fact that Liberalism bows and worships at the altar of the UN is a testament to Liberalism's lack of resolve in defending human life, here OR abroad. Do we allow ourselves to be distracted by, say, the Iranians with endless, pointless, fruitless talks and reparté, while they further their ambitions to become a nuclear power? Again, you prove my point-- Liberalism is morally ill-equipped to defend human rights... here OR abroad.
Finally,
"Violence is faster... It's also the only way to make monsters suffer, which is a petty and meaningless impulse if we think, as Gandhi did, of any individual lifetime on earth as a passing moment in relation to eternity."
In relation to eternity? Liberalism doesn't care about eternity. If it did, it wouldn't strive so hard to stamp out mention of religion from the public square... Oh! that's right... it's typically only Christianity that is unwelcome in the public square. Liberalism doesn't mind bowing down to Islam out of fear and some twisted sense of 'tolerance for different beliefs' --as though Liberalism accepted all beliefs equally. Liberalism balks at Christianity being on display in public schools but sees no harm in forcing students, for a grade, to practice Islam and fast during Ramadan. Liberalism, the ideology, is cognitive hypocrisy personified.
Please note, I said, "Liberalism"... Kindly leave Marion out it. Fight your own battles. If you're able.
That which is different is neither dangerous or wrong or immoral. Until you learn that, you will never be able to grow spiritually. If you can't respond to my posts with anything but well-trodden slogans, then you do not understand your own philosophy. All you can say is "Liberals hate christianity!" "Liberals hate the constitution!" "Liberals love terrorists!" Grow up! Use your brain. Do you think I'm asleep? Do you think I don't read? Or study problems? Or look for facts? Or love America? I certainly don't think those things about you!!!!!!!!!!! If you can't conceive of how I come to the answers I arrive at, you will never be able to converse with me! i understand your point of view. I do. I see how your faith informs your positions on life and sexuality issues. I can even understand your points about national security. I think they are incorrect, but i understand the logic you used to get to those places. Can you meet me halfway and take my positions seriously. Can you refrain from denigrating me? Even if by second-hand association?
If you can't support your positions better than by shouting about "Liberalism" or sloganeering, then you aren't actually thinking. You have instead turned the processes of logic over to others.
Show me the train of logic you used to get from the 9-11 attacks to supporting the War in Iraq. Don't try to turn the conversation to what Democrats did or said. Show me why you have supported or opposed these actions. That's conversation and thought. Isn't that what we both aspire to?
Second-hand association? You mean your dragging Marion into the mix? That's on you. I respect Marion. She and I don't shout at each other. You make it difficult for me to feel the same toward you... DIFFICULT, though not impossible. I have no problem being respectful, but you and I are both playing this hypocritical game of saccharine-sweet niceness at work while tearing each other apart online. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Sick that I let you goad me into being what I most despise about liberal commenters in general.
"Can you meet me halfway and take my positions seriously."
Can you do the same? And if this is something you're already doing, perhaps then the failing is mine in expecting (because the pattern is familiar) only attacks and criticism from you.
What was it I said earlier this evening? Something about disagreeing "without being disagreeable"? Perhaps we both need a refresher course. What was it you said to me in return? "I'll hold you to that"? In that case, and all sarcasm aside... Thank-you for being a man of your word. I am duly chastened and apologize for being offensive. All I ask in return is that you also strive to be more agreeable in your disagreement.
For the record. Conservatism defines my political leanings, but it does not inform everything I believe, nor is it inseparable from who I am. I'm assuming the same is true of you.... which is why I attacked "Liberalism" and not liberals, per se. I know that philosophy is not the entirety of any man's being, though it greatly informs him-- Greatly, not entirely.
Liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
Nothing in there about hating God, morality, the US or her Constitution.
Conservatism: A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
What definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" are you all using?
Tangentially, I apologize for allowing my and Ben's disagreements to be aired here for all to see. We used to have titanic arguments at work until I realized it wasn't worth elevating my blood pressure over. Now it seems our ongoing "cold-war" argument has boiled over onto the internet, and for that I apologize.
For the record, this argument between Ben and I began a year or more before I was drawn back to Church-- I had been away since 1993-4 --so this bitter struggle between us revolves more around political ideology than it does spiritual... for me at least. Although, I can see how our spiritual differences color the tone of our present unhealthy spate of rhetoric.
What I called in my previous comment hypocritical: My and Ben's congeniality at work vs. our vociferous disagreements here, reminds of the old cartoons from the Bugs Bunny lineup... the ones with Sam the sheep dog & Ralph the wolf, only in reverse... it's OFF the clock that we battle it out over sheep.
If you define it as "The belief that we ought to hate the US and work to undermine its Constitution because we hate God and anything godly or moral," you will realize no liberal thinks that, I assume?
In contrast, Conservatism believes even the average citizen can decide for themselves what is best for themselves and their families, with limited and basic supports from a smaller federal government. Conservatism believes in getting out of the way of individual ingenuity, know-how, and all around 'get up and go'... with minimal regulation. And while taxation is a necessary evil, Conservatism believes and understands that exorbitant taxation stifles economic growth, and individual prosperity.
Most liberals I know DON'T trust gov't. That's why we want to decrease our military budget, why we want campaign reform, why we are disgusted with both Dems and Republicans.
Conversely, we DO trust people. We trust people to make their own medical decisions without the gov't (which we DON'T trust) intervening to make those decisions for us. We trust people to make their own decisions about marriage and families, about what they ingest.
We want to give The People freedom from oppressive gov't AND corporate policies.
And so perhaps you can get a glimpse of my confusion as to your definition: It's not a real-world definition that matches anyone I know or have read. Can you cite any credible "liberal" representative who makes these claims?
And if you're wanting to cite only what it seems like liberals think (that we can't trust people to make their own decisions, that we want to give gov't too much power, etc), couldn't the same be said about "conservatives" who want to make the gov't the Nanny who tells you who can get married to whom, what medical treatments you may or may not seek, etc, etc?
In other words, ought we not look for objective definitions that are true in the real world instead of assigning some definition that no liberal (or conservative) would claim?
[and for the record, when I include myself in with "liberals" by saying "we think...," I'd like to repeat that I think those labels are mostly inefficient and insufficient for identifying folk. Because I don't trust gov't enough to have a massive military, does that make me a liberal or a conservative? I think I'm more conservative than Bush is, according to the Classic Definition given conservatism, but I'm also more liberal if you look at it in another way...]
And this is where you lose me. When I speak of Liberalism, I am speaking in the abstract-- as I tried to make Ben understand. But I'm also talking about politicians.... not "most liberals" you know. Studying the policies, past legislations, the intended and unintended consequences of past legislation, and the utter failure of "Congressional" liberalism to correct its course (and don't think I don't hold congressional Republicans to a lesser standard), it is quite evident to anyone with open eyes, that "liberalism" is defined as I stated previously. Irrespective of any liberals you know. THOSE liberals aren't destroying America. Our elected officials, on both sides of the aisle, are. Liberals for their socialistic, big government policies, and conservatives for trying to make nice with liberals by not working to tear down the ugly edifices of liberal social construction.
Does Bush represent "conservatism" and therefore "conservatism" as enacted out by Bush ought to be blasted?
From your words above, Eric, it seems your problem is with our elected representatives, not Liberalism or Conservatism. If so, then make THAT case, but don't blame Liberalism when what you mean is Elected Representatives.
I suppose you have seen Bush's unprecedented $3.1 T-T-Trilion budget proposal?
Never fails. Whether it's Reagan, Bush or Bush, Jr, the elected Republican Presidents have increased the size and scope of the gov't, and done so dramatically more than either Carter or Clinton.
But again, this comes back to the actual meanings of words. Sometimes, some Democratic politicians have called themselves proudly liberal, but what they mean by that is they support the notion of gov't staying out of people's business, spending money wisely in investing in our Republic.
It could be that they don't mean what you think they mean.
Now, from I've read and seen, most politicians - Dem and Republican - have run from the label of "liberal."
And so again I say, perhaps your problem is with specific politicians and not liberalism, since it plainly doesn't mean what you have suggested it means.
Bush's budget notwithstanding.
My beef is with government... specifically our PRESENT government which is overwhelmingly Liberal... ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE!
While Dan's definitions are to me accurate, my own personal philosophy is formed not from that creed but directly from America's idealistic documents.
The Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
The Statue of Liberty
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"
The words of Abraham Lincoln
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy."
Dan's definition of liberalism distills these seminal piece of America into two sentences. I can't support torture of terrorists because I support the declaration of independence. I can't support the criminalization of illegal immigrants, because I love the idea behind the statue of liberty. What foundational American documents and quotes inform conservatism, and how do they guide you relating to modern political problems?
Well, you don't seem to mind tramping all over my feelings, but let yours get scuffed and this is what we get. I guess when you learn to take your own advice we'll get along just fine. Until then, I'm choosing to ignore your presence online from this point on.
The Statue of Liberty had her purpose--100 years ago! Now she is best left as a symbol. We have no more room for tired, huddle masses. Sorry but check the population stats.
What's wrong with shutting down our borders? Those Liberal countries in Europe that some of you Boys view as progressive, would never allow such rampant disregard for their own immigration laws.
Feelings? Whoa oh whoa feelings? Feelings are over-rated in this "politically correct" culture. Feelings are part of the problem because it appears this society has traded values in for them.
It amazes me when I hear someone willing to offer some sort of laundry list of human rights to an enemy willing to strap explosives to a mentally ill individual to further their cause. This enemy kills innocent humans who should, by your standards, have a right to live a long life in pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration does not apply to Terrorists any more than Geneva does. Our forefathers would have used ANY force necesary to defeat this enemy in order to preserve that very Declaration you quote so FREELY. To think otherwise, is naive.
wow.
How you feel about the Constitution or the Geneva Convention? Still valid or quaint symbols?
Anyone who would strap explosives to Down Syndrome women and remote detonate them in a crowded market... You're right.