
Hat tip: Toddler Reality Show
Windows Toward the World
where I'm a Rank Stranger
June 12, 2008 in Against Racism, Poverty, and War, Views To Consider

Hat tip: Toddler Reality Show
| helenl on Wisdom From Thomas Merton | |
| phoebe kate on Wisdom From Thomas Merton | |
| helenl on Becoming Food For the World by… | |
| Mervi on Becoming Food For the World by… | |
| helenl on Becoming Food For the World by… |
Theme by Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson. Get a free blog at WordPress.com.

36 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 12, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Jay Burns
That’s funny.
June 12, 2008 at 10:59 pm
helenl
I thought so, Jay.
June 12, 2008 at 11:12 pm
churchofthegreatoval
HAH! Perfect!
June 12, 2008 at 11:23 pm
helenl
Hi Clance’, Glad you dropped by.
June 13, 2008 at 12:20 am
Eve
It would be funnier if it were true. Conservatives out-give liberals in charitable giving, supposedly.
June 13, 2008 at 12:29 am
helenl
Hi Eve, That’s because they have more money. Rich people give to charity; poor people just share.
June 13, 2008 at 12:57 am
Eve
Oh, silly me. Helen, I actually thought that giving one’s money to others WAS sharing.
June 13, 2008 at 12:59 am
helenl
Eve, I didn’t mean that to be snide. People give for a variety of reasons.
June 13, 2008 at 8:32 am
Lynn
“Conservatives out-give liberals in charitable giving, supposedly.” — Sorry, Eve, but a claim like this needs to be sourced. Besides, on what basis? Total dollars or percentage of income or what?
June 13, 2008 at 10:26 am
Mike Lovell
Lynn, I don’t have teh exact source for you, but if you read the book “Makers and Takers” by Peter Schweizer, I’m sure he has the statistics backed up with source notes.
June 13, 2008 at 10:27 am
Mike Lovell
BTW, Helen, how did you get a picture of the future Jay Burns?!?!?!? Sorry Jay, I couldn’t resist!
June 13, 2008 at 10:57 am
helenl
Hi Lynn, Welcome to my blog. Statistics can prove anything.
Hi Mike,
Rich people are philanthropists. Rich people can afford to be philanthropists because they have too much money. Rich people have too much money because poor people have too little. Poor people are the recipients of philanthropy. A redistribution of wealth would make all people middle – no rich, no poor, and thus, no need for philanthropy.
All we need is simple sharing. See?
As to the picture, ah, I never reveal a source.
June 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Mike Lovell
Yes Helen Statistics can prove anything…we all remember that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend one type of toothpaste over the rest, amazingly enough it applies to whichever brand is on the commercial at the moment.
The problem with redistribution is this…it negates the need to work, or succeed. Why would I work harder than Joe Schmo, if he gets the same amount of reward as I do. This concept is why communism is better operated in its grand utopian theory than it is in actual practice.
Secondly, to a degree (I will admit, some people are poor not of their own direct fault), the difference between rich and poor is also a thought process. If you redistribute the current wealth, without drastically changing the thought processes, within 2 generations, you will see that money go back to where it was to begin with. That’s what’s so great about America…and many an immigrant understands what we have long forgotten, on your own merits, you can go from nobody with nothing, to somebody who has all they want and need.
You also have to remember rich and poor arent exclusive to party affiliation. Many a democrat (I have many “limousine liberals” that contract my security company) is richer than the average, yet operates his or her money in the same ways that evil republicans are accused of being.
I think you go out and you make as much money as you can…and THEN you turn around and spread the wealth to help as many people as you can. But, I also believe you choose who to help by what margins. For instance, if I want to throw 10% of my disposable income at Habitat for Humanity, but only 5% to Meals on Wheels, but a whopping 25% of that disposable income to some sculptor/sculptress to adorn my town with art, that should be up to me, not Mr. Washington Politician. If I choose to spend all my disposable income on random people and businesses (oftentimes stimulating the economy through multiple business transactions, and the security of jobs) that too should be my business to decide.
Being told to give your money up indiscriminately, and without the option of choice is in and of itself anti-American. See the preceeeding events of the Revolutionary War. The Colonialists only wanted a bit of say in the matter, but being rebuffed at all paths of consideration, the forced their choice upon King George, as he had forced his choices upon them.
June 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm
helenl
Why is work linked to money?
Why are some kinds of work linked to more money than other types of work?
Why are some kinds of work (such as child care) worth little or no money?
Why is education linked to money?
Why is having life’s basics provided thought of as a “reward”?
See, there are questions.
Everyone always uses words like “utopia” and “communist” when I suggest that the world should contain enough food for all to eat, that the God who made us is in favor of that.
No one in his right mind would suggest we give out fancy cars and houses and stereos. But eating and having access to good medical care seem somehow basic to modern human life.
We are modern. Are we human?
These are rhetorical, thought, questions not a challenge to prove me wrong.
June 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Jay Burns
No republican I know of wants to see people starve. We also don’t want life to be so good that there isn’t an incentive to get off the public dole. We consistantly see people living on the public system who drive nicer cars than we can afford, and almost always have satelite tv. How can this be? If it were the exception to the rule it would be one thing, however from my experience it seems to be the rule.
Governement programs just don’t work. There has to be a better way.
June 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm
helenl
Hi Jay,
So “We consistantly see people living on the public system who drive nicer cars than we can afford, and almost always have satelite tv.”
Name three.
June 13, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Mike Lovell
I can lump in cable tv with satellites, and implicate 6 separate apartments around me..Nary a job but for one of them in that group, and I know where he works, and they dont pay that well!
One example of government run programs not working…..the Capitol Hill Restuarant network…surprisingly enough, they think the good solution is to privatize it, after approximately $18 million in losses over the last 15 years.
June 13, 2008 at 3:17 pm
helenl
Bad apartments.
Mike, apartments aren’t people.
June 13, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Lynn
Just as with statistics, anecdotes can paint any picture you want to paint. For every person Mike can name who doesn’t work, but drives a nice car or whatever, I can name another one who works as hard or harder than anyone – some working more than one job – and can’t afford health care or a decent education for their children.
“We are modern. Are we human?” — Perfect!
Thanks, Helen, for welcoming me to this string.
June 13, 2008 at 3:41 pm
helenl
You are welcome, Lynn.
June 13, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Jay Burns
Yes, anecdotes can paint any picture we want. However, if the system worked we wouldn’t see those people so readily. As I said I don’t want people to starve. I just want living on the government dole to be so bad people will do whatever it takes to get off the system.
By the way, I could name three people. Some of them reletives doing just that. I wouldn’t however be so cruel as to mention their names on-line.
June 13, 2008 at 3:55 pm
helenl
Okay, Jay. I buy not naming them online.
June 13, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Mike Lovell
Bad apartments. Mike, apartments aren’t people.
Touche’
June 13, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Tomas
The picture looks effectively indeed. The ugliness talks and therefore the picture can be named as the artwork- the picture looks like the masterpiece. However, is that the beauty?
The headache sat back me in a chair and that too was ugly. Does it mean I too am one of them?
While sinking in my chair I feel myself embraced by God and His love enables me to hug the Earth, to recognize myself in each step of my mind travels.
It was fine to love my beloved, but it is just grand to experience God’s care for all of us.
while looking from the outside, I too may look like the heroes of the picture, but what does that mean?
June 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm
earthpal
Isn’t there a biblical parable or an account of a poor widow who gave money before entering the temple . . . . and didn’t Jesus tell his disciples that her donation was far greater than that of the rich people even though it was less in actual amount because she gave out of her poverty?
Generally speaking, Conservatives are usually well off and are most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals.
June 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Jay Burns
What is your proof earthpal. Or is this simply what you believe to be true? Again to be fair anecdotal evidence is not to be counted.
June 13, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Jay Burns
I had heard also that Conservatives outgive Liberals, generaly speaking. However, I refrained from posting that as a response to this post because I didn’t have time to site proof of such. Here is a link to a book that explains just that. However, there is one other thing. It only applies to “religious” conservatives. Take it for what you will.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
June 14, 2008 at 6:58 am
earthpal
Jayburns, their policies speak for themselves.
June 14, 2008 at 9:35 am
Mike Lovell
earthpal,
you mean the policies which almost purposely drive prices up on consumers, such as say petroleum based products like gasoline, heating oil, etc and food products? Or the policies that inhibit our ability to provide clean energy sources? Or would it be the policies that help to ensure long maintained and growing welfare roles?
June 14, 2008 at 11:04 am
helenl
Tomas, It is true we cannot tell what lies beneath the surface by looking at the outside. That is the exact reason why we cannot fairly judge. Thanks for dropping by.
EarthPal, There is a parable about the poor widow, yes.
Jay and Mike, It might be useful for you to know that EarthPal lives in England.
June 14, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Jana
Helen – I’m trying to catch up reading the posts I have missed the past few days. I still feel very fatigued, but am better. I liked the posts about love and this picture is just too funny!!! I wouldn’t think this picture was for the purpose of argument but more for entertainment.
In defense of Jay, there are many in our area who live on the public system and drive huge SUV’s, luxury cars, custom rims, finest of clothes, etc. I, too, could name much more than three that I know personally. Even so, I don’t think it is because the government programs aren’t working but rather there are many who abuse the system. The programs work for those who are in need. In our area, there is so much dishonesty and people receive benefits that should not be receiving them. Maybe this is an area that needs improvement within the program structures. I don’t know.
June 14, 2008 at 7:06 pm
helenl
Hi Jana, Glad you are feeling better.
I thought this was for entertainment also, but it turned out to be the starting point for discussion, which is fine. I’m sure there is much abuse of government programs. I just think we have to be careful not to cut off those who are truly in need due to the dishonesty of others.
June 15, 2008 at 9:50 am
Mike Lovell
I personally am in favor of a graduated assistance program. Rather than either qualifying for every penny available, or not getting anything- that it would be according to your income, and while your income may raise, your benefits would decrease, but not just dropping off altogether.
And to Lynn, yes, I can name quit e few people who wor their butts off for next to nothing. But I applaud their making an effort. It’s the ones who refuse to work at all, or refuse to take job “A” because they feel its beneath them, that I often take issue with.
The true Christian intention behind public assistance I am for, and as posted in a different blog (I think by Jay, I’m not sure) that the government took over when the churches failed to care for the poor masses. I think that there just needs to be honest reform to the system that looks at life, local cost of living etc. not just some simple number crunching that tells us nothing.
June 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm
earthpal said:
Generally speaking, Conservatives are usually well off and are most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals.
I guess questions I would have is “WHY are conservatives usually well off?” And “Does money determine your political persuasion?”
I would also note, that having been informed that your English, I’m not up to par on any differences between G.B. and the U.S., but I would say that just because somebody is a republican, that does not make them conservative, and vice versa.
June 15, 2008 at 5:56 pm
helenl
Mike, when I say a redistribution of wealth, I mean soemthing more balanced that what it is not exactly equal portions. And certainly we want to encourage those who are able to work. There is satisfaction and self-image to think about, as well as life’s necessities. There is claiming one’s place in the group (community, society). No one I know wants to encourage laziness and covertousness. It’s just that it’s clear, at least to me, that some people work very hard and get nowhere. Whereas, others inherit a good start and make lots more.
And there is the problem of value. On one hand, conservatives speak of family values and want mothers to (stay home and away from work while they) care for young children. And yet when they do they lose out on promotions. Sure it’s by choice. And it’s a good choice. But why should families with two workers have a bigger, better house than the ones who did what seems right. No one knows how to solve this problem. Who would make up the difference?
This is not an easy situation. I’m not for government control of our lives. But I’m not seeing people get out of these situations either.
June 16, 2008 at 11:04 am
Mike Lovell
Yeah, that’s the problem with it all. None of it is simple. I have no problem with the basic intentions of the overall agenda. The problem lies within the details. Everyone talks big picture, and pays less attention to the details. That’s why fascism, as evidenced by Mussolini, was so popular. It spoke to a great society, which was later in part emulated by FDR and the Progressive movements of the 20s and 30s, LBJ’s Great Society, and [some] current liberal platforms. It often finds itself being led by a group of people, most often the government, who seems to “know” better than the rest of us…where the person is less important than the people.
I just wanted to add before I sign off, I do love it when we have these conversations. It provides me with an outlet (my wife cares not as much about talking politics and whatnot), as well as additional insight!
June 16, 2008 at 11:35 am
helenl
Mike, I, too, enjoy such dialog. I learn through discussion. And If I change my mind, well I change my mind. Intelligent human beings do that when they learn that something other than what they first believed is true. That’s why I love being a student. You get to explore ideas and take from them that kernel of truth without buying the whole bundle. The same is true to a lesser degree of dialog online.
Like your wife, my husband doesn’t enjoy the discussion part (which is not to say that he doesn’t hold strong political opinions). And at the risk of sounding more New Agey than I am, I’ll point out that no one can get all he/she needs from one relationship (e.g., marriage). Vows matter immensely (I’ve been married to the same man 39 years later this month and am glad I am), but there are activities (such as dialog or someone to critique my poems) that do not stem from the marriage relationship. When we put all our eggs in one basket (expecting that one person to meet all our needs), we are domed to failure. Feel free to jump in at any point on this blog.