Republican Socialism...again...

[Bruce Carriker]

Whatever happened to all those free market, Adam Smith-worshiping, Republicans?

In the last six months the federal government has bailed out Bear Stearns, taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we...the American taxpayers...are now the proud owners of 80% of AIG. Does that mean that we will all get a proxy vote when they appoint the CEO and the corporate board?

It's really becoming clear that the GOP's philosophy of appropriate government intervention is that large corporations falling under the weight of their own greed and mismanagement are worthy recipients of government rescue efforts, but ordinary people should be left to fend for themselves and suffer the consequences of their own poor judgment.

This difference of opinion in who really matters is stark and real. We don't have the money to extend health care insurance for poor children, but we can bail out millionaire CEO's and their billionaire investors. It's simply shameful.

[Barbara Moulton]

How long can your country afford these massive bailouts?

[Sara Sheppard]

This republican is not happy about it at all. I don't think we should bail out individual homeowners who make bad house purchase decisions. I don't think we should bail out people who build homes in flood plains and then get flooded. And I don't think we should bail out large companies who mis-manage their business.

Now, I would not have a problem helping the everyday individuals impacted by these decisions (i.e. support for the employees who are losing jobs, health insurance that is paid for until they can secure new employment, etc.)

I would much rather be paying for all Americans to get their college degrees, put in great mass transportation, and help small business owners start a new business than I would bail people out of stupid decisions and most of these decisions be it a young couple who purchaes a 3000 sq ft house when they really should have bought an 1800 sq foot house or the company who makes bad decisions all boil down to greed.

So...pleaes don't thik that all republicans are happy with these bail outs - I think they are ridiculous.

[Sara Sheppard]

How long can your country afford these massive bailouts?


We can't afford it Barbara. We just keep sinking further in debt and passing it along to the next generation to pay for.....

[Jon Bemis]

How long can your country afford these massive bailouts?

Time will tell. In this case, it looks like the Fed had no choice. "AIG's looming collapse pushed the nation's central bank to take the dramatic step of bailing out the company, fearing its failure could have resulted in greater financial instability, higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth and weaker national economic growth." http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/PersonalFinance/story?id=5819481&page=1

This article also states, "Current management of the company will be replaced, though the board of directors will stay in place for the time being. But the board's power may be limited, as the federal government now has veto power over important decisions such as which divisions to sell, what companies to buy and whether dividends should be paid."

[Bruce Carriker]

I would much rather be paying for all Americans to get their college degrees, :eek::eek:

put in great mass transportation, :eek::eek:

and help small business owners start a new business

:eek::eek:


You're problem, Sara, is that you're just not a very good Republican. :basic03

[Bruce Carriker]

"_______'s looming collapse pushed the nation's central bank to take the dramatic step of bailing out the company, fearing its failure could have resulted in greater financial instability, higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth and weaker national economic growth."

Can't we just sort of fill in the blank, here? Isn't that essentially the same thing that was said about Bear Stearns? And Freddie Mac? And Fannie Mae?

Lehman Brothers must really feel like they're the ugly step-sister in all this. How is they're the only ones who can't get a bailout?

[Jon Bemis]

"_______'s looming collapse pushed the nation's central bank to take the dramatic step of bailing out the company, fearing its failure could have resulted in greater financial instability, higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth and weaker national economic growth."

Can't we just sort of fill in the blank, here? Isn't that essentially the same thing that was said about Bear Stearns? And Freddie Mac? And Fannie Mae?

Lehman Brothers must really feel like they're the ugly step-sister in all this. How is they're the only ones who can't get a bailout?

I'm no economist - just ask my wife! I do have a friend who is a senior vp in a company that does corporate financing who stays pretty close to what is going on in the financial markets, and his view is that AIG's collapse would have caused considerably more market instability and damage to our economy. All's I know that the way things are going with my 403b, my official retirement age has now been pushed to somewhere in my late 70's.

[Rich Hudson]

I cringe every time I open my IRA and 403B accounts to check. It is alarming to watch dollars that were hard to earn evaporate slowly.

On a positive note, there are some signs of sanity in Seattle. A courageous Democratic governor refused to cave to carpetbagger from Oklahoma looking for a taxpayer funded largess to build an unwanted, unneeded and unnecessary sports palace. His duplicity, along with the outlandish measure of the demand, made it possible for him to move his team to OKC which was part of the plan from the beginning.

Kudos to Governor Gregoire and our legislature for refusing to cooperate in this extortion. I'll miss the SuperSonics, but not the criminal NBA.

[Sara Sheppard]

You're problem, Sara, is that you're just not a very good Republican. :basic03


Well except that I hate our entire welfare system. Note that the items I stated above are for 'all' and for people who are trying to WORK (education, small business, and mass transportation which helps workers get to WORK). Not for those who want to stay home and do nothing. For instance, Dems seem to be for giving a free college education - as long as you've messed up your life and had kids at a young age. But then they want those of us who kept our nose clean to have to go it alone for college. And well, I've more than once given my opinion on tax credits for having lots of kids. I believe in the FLAT tax system. So...see I am a republican too. ha

And socially - I'm certainly conservative. ;) (i.e. - I'm all for pro-choice BEFORE a woman hops in bed - not after).

[Glenn Messer]

You're problem, Sara, is that you're just not a very good Republican. :basic03

No, Bruce. The problem is that Democrats don't really understand true conservative Republicans. We're more apt to tell you the real problem is Congress and lately it doesn't seem to make much difference as to who is in charge.

[Sara Sheppard]

You're problem, Sara, is that you're just not a very good Republican. :basic03


And, no, I have not officially decided who I am going to vote for this time. I was seriously considering Hillary, but now I'm really quite undecided.

My problem with McCain is I just think he's way too old and doesn't really seem to know what he stands for.

My problem with Obama is that I think he's going to increase taxes on a woman like me (single, no kids, educated, and making a pretty decent living) to turn around and hand it to someone who has numerous kids and no job. Don't get me wrong - the kids need fed and I'm all for helping feed and educate them. The problem is, the money that will be taken from me and given to this other woman will most likely NOT be used for food or education to help the children she has. It will be used on drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Sorry...but I lose my motivation to get up and go to work everyday when my money is taken for that. I would much rather the government trust me with that money and I will choose to use it to support programs at my local church where I KNOW the money gets used for feeding the hungry and mentoring children with little education.

I want to see SERIOUS welfare reform that tells people - you have to work. I'm sorry, but there are jobs people. McDonald's is hiring. So is Walmart. GET A JOB already......

I also want to see SERIOUS immigraiton reform and not the kind that either a) kicks everyone out or b) welcomes every criminal from around the world. Somehwere in between has got to be a better answer. But I do think it is UN-American for us to build walls. What does the statue of liberty stand for? Aren't almost 100% of us decendent of immigrants only 4-5 generations back?

Sara

[Brady R. Lane]

Help me out here. This is a serious question; no sarcasm or innuendo intended. In these bailouts that are currently happening, is it being done by executive order, or is their an emergency legislative process involved?

Inquiring minds want to know. At least this one does.

[John Kennedy]

My understandiing is that they are done by exec order based on statutory law authorizing such. For instance, I think in the AIG situation, the action was based on a depressin era statute.


They would be, of course, subject to judicial review. The concept of 'emergency legislative process' is probably as close as we're going to get to a working definition of an oxymoron.

[John Kennedy]

'True conservative Republicans' used to believe in balanced budgets and abhor deficit spending. In regard to bail outs they can 'privatize profits and socialize losses' with the best of 'em.

[Billy Cox]

Help me out here. This is a serious question; no sarcasm or innuendo intended. In these bailouts that are currently happening, is it being done by executive order, or is their an emergency legislative process involved?

Inquiring minds want to know. At least this one does.

The players are the Federal Reserve and the Dept. of Treasury and the US Congress (they have to approve the funding).

[Billy Cox]

The refrain I keep hearing is, "company 'x' is sooo huge that allowing it to fail would send the global economy into a tailspin."

The message I am getting is that a company can do anything it wants if it is large enough.

[Sara Sheppard]

Hans - have I done something to break the rules? I noticed that you have edited two of my posts. Let me know if I have....

Thanks!
Sara

[Hans Deventer]

Hans - have I done something to break the rules? I noticed that you have edited two of my posts. Let me know if I have....

No, no! I've just been repairing quotes. It had become rather messy.

[John Kennedy]

Then there's the old thing about 'debtor's leverage:

Borrow a relatively small amount and you worry about paying it back.

Borrow a relatively higher amount and let the creditor worry about it.

I rather suspect that the argument of the extreme negative consequences of one of the 'giants' going under has some validity. What irritates me is the persistent hypocritical posturing that these guys are fearless economic warriors in the true spirit of Adam Smith. Hogwash! They and their cohorts have probably done more to destroy the classic free enterprise system they love to so loudly rattle on about than any other single individual or group.

Since the two classic foes, Smith and Marx, are both buried in England, the unsettled ground motion you see if "Whirlin' Adam'" and the green mist rising from the other grave is the effluent of Karl's envy.

[Cindi Hammons]

My problem with Obama is that I think he's going to increase taxes on a woman like me (single, no kids, educated, and making a pretty decent living) to turn around and hand it to someone who has numerous kids and no job.

Sara, this is the table of the results from Obama's tax plan. So, unless you make over $227,000, you should not see a tax decrease.

Obama's Plan
Income Avg. tax bill

$603K and up . . . . +$115,974
$227K-$603K . . . . .+$12
$161K-$227K . . . . .-$2,789
$112K-$161K . . . . .-$2,204
$66K-$112K . . . . .-$1,290
$38K-$66K . . . . .-$1,042
$19K-$38K . . . . .-$892
Under $19K . . . . .-$567

[Jim Franklin]

It seems to me that it was the lesser of two evils or which action would be the greatest good for the greatest number overall. Not really that much different than Democrats raising taxes on businesses and the taxpayer/consumer paying higher prices for consumption of products and service. We all pay through the nose whichever.

[Ryan Scott]

I posted a link to an interview in which an economist explains why some of the bailouts have been happening. Really, you can just do some research on "Credit Default Swaps" and see how we've gotten to where we are. I found it more than intriguing.

[Tonya Sneed]

[QUOTE=Sara Sheppard;221506
My problem with Obama is that I think he's going to increase taxes on a woman like me (single, no kids, educated, and making a pretty decent living) to turn around and hand it to someone who has numerous kids and no job. Don't get me wrong - the kids need fed and I'm all for helping feed and educate them. The problem is, the money that will be taken from me and given to this other woman will most likely NOT be used for food or education to help the children she has. It will be used on drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Sorry...but I lose my motivation to get up and go to work everyday when my money is taken for that. I would much rather the government trust me with that money and I will choose to use it to support programs at my local church where I KNOW the money gets used for feeding the hungry and mentoring children with little education.

I want to see SERIOUS welfare reform that tells people - you have to work. I'm sorry, but there are jobs people. McDonald's is hiring. So is Walmart. GET A JOB already......

Sara[/QUOTE]



Sara,
In responding to your comment, I'm not meaning to pick on you, but am just addressing thoughts that many people have, thoughts that I once had too. . .

I used to work for a Mission and worked closely with women on welfare. (Indeed, when I was a young child, my own family depended heavily on government support.)

When I first started at the Mission, I had a lot of misperceptions about welfare recipients. I definitely viewed them as lazy and unmotivated. But after 9 years, my perceptions had changed drastically. Among the things I learned were the following:

1)Most of the moms wanted to work and gained a sense of fulfillment whenever they did. The problem was that most couldn't afford to work. Who can work a minimum wage job AND pay for childcare and bus transportation? Unless they worked 2 jobs and almost never saw their kids, at the end of the week, the minimum wage workers had less money than the welfare recipients. Thus, many of the women were, ironically, doing the responsible thing by not working.

2)The moms who were able to work almost always had family support, such as a sister or grandparents who helped watch the kids. But many of the poor don't have this kind of support -- which is part of the reason why they are in the predicament they are in in the first place.

3)I wasn't a fan of welfare reform because the moms I knew went to work on 2nd shift and their kids ran the streets. Since I no longer work closely in it, I don't know how welfare reform is being applied today, but in the 90's in Peoria, the government wasn't guaranteeing daycare or transportation. Back then in Peoria, the buses didn't run late, and the moms had to figure out how to get home from their second shift job that would go to 11 p.m. or later. And then their minimum wage jobs rarely gave them 40 hours, and often the hours they did get would be haphazard, making it nearly impossible to get a second job.

4)Most of the moms in poverty I know who have been able to support their kids through work are working 2-3 jobs. They work far more hours than I do, and are often in manual labor kinds of work.

5)I never met a woman who was able to support a drug habit solely on welfare checks. Maybe she exists out there -- but I haven't met her. In fact, most of the welfare recipients I knew didn't use illegal drugs at all. And in the rare instances when they did, they almost without exception turned to prostitution as a way to support the habit.

6)Having lived in an impoverished neighborhood for 18 years, I can tell you that most of the serious drug users don't live here at all. Despite the perception, the poor aren't the ones primarily funding the drug trade. Even the police officers here will tell you this. Most of those buying the drugs are white middle class people, especially males in their 30s or 40s. I can take you to a drug house and we can sit outside and watch the cars that pull up. They tend to be rather nice vehicles actually -- clearly men with some means, with some decent jobs, in fancy pick-up trucks and whatnot. There's no need for drug pushers. The white people come to my neighborhood to pick up the drugs.

7)Most of the money that welfare recipients receive is spent in our economy. These dollars are almost immediately recycled. It's a rare welfare recipient who can save much of any money, and even if they were able to do so, they'd be penalized. (At least, that was the law in the 90s -- they were not allowed to have much of any money in a savings account.)

8)The big-time welfare recipients are the corporate welfare recipients. I personally benefit from corporate welfare, and I benefit way more than any of the poor moms I've met.

tonya

[Loretta Neureiter]

I want to see SERIOUS welfare reform that tells people - you have to work. I'm sorry, but there are jobs people. McDonald's is hiring. So is Walmart. GET A JOB already......

Sara

I remember my mother telling me that at one time anyone on welfare had to do odd jobs assigned to them or lose their pay check. Examples would be, picking up trash along highways, picking up dead animals, painting anything that needed painted, shoveling snow, working on the railroad, mowing grass etc. I think they should go back to something like that. Does anyone here remember any of this. My mom if she was still living would be 94, so it could have been awhile ago.

[Tonya Sneed]

P.S.

I'm finally reading Sunday's Peoria Journal Star newspaper, and, ironically, the featured story is about a woman working 3 jobs (and mentions her friends who also work 3 jobs). This woman is able to manage 3 jobs because her full time job has regular hours (she drives a bus for the disabled) and because one of her part-time jobs is her own business (a beauty salon) so she is able to set some of her own hours. Her other part-time job is as a nurse's aide at a nursing home, where she's on call. Unlike many welfare recipients, she's also able to work these kinds of hours because her children are grown.

She has to work long hours, by the way, in order to pay for her anti-rejection medicine (she had a kidney transplant).

Though I'm getting off the point of the thread, I found this paragraph especially of interest:
With some types of transplants, such as liver transplants. . .many transplant centers are faced with the dilemma of selecting prospective transplantees from waiting lists based on whether they can afford anti-rejection medications after the transplant. "What they have to decide is this: 'We've got a perfectly good liver, so why should we put it in someone we know will not be able to maintain it financially?'"

[Jim Franklin]

To some it might seem strange that after completing a Masters and most of a doctorate and teaching at a Nazarene college, I had to rely on housing assistance to shelter my family while unemployed. When I moved to Boise in 1977 hoping to at least gain an adjunct position at NNC which never materialized, I looked for work and after several weeks caught on at JC Penneys selling shoes part time as I had done previously at four other JCP stores during my time off from school teaching. Then an opportunity came up to go full time at Sears but after awhile I was no longer needed there. I drew unemployment for awhile and then got on at a men's wear shop. We were living in the run down mobile home that we could barely afford. Three years later I was out of work on unemployment again and applied for housing assistance. Two years later after several "catch as catch can" jobs a business owner in our church gave me temporary employment as a secretary while his permanent secretary had surgery and recovery time. Finally we were on the Housing Authority list to receive assistance with a deadline of 60 days to search and find housing that the Authority would approve. We looked and we looked and on about day 54 I called our case worker and told him I thought it was a hoax being played on poor people, he immediately gave me an address and a person to meet that same day for a 600 square foot duplex which was mighty crowded for four people including 2 growing boys. After a time of trying Fuller Brush salesman, I got a custodial job with the school district which did not last very long. Then for one month I was a collector for an advertising firm driving up through Washington state, Montana and Utah over 7000 miles in that one month until my car gave out on me. Then I took a job offered by a church friend as a bookkeeper for 12 stores without any training or aptitude for that kind of work but I stuck it out for about a year and a half until I spent from 1988 to 2000 at the main JCPenneys in the mall, first at $3.65/hour and later as a commissioned suit salesman where God blessed me with rising to the top salesman in the firm's Intermountain District covering Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington until retirement from which I draw $115/mon. It was JCPenney's after all. Did I enjoy having to rely on various forms of state assistance including standing in line for commodity food hand outs, not on your life. The main help I got from my church was being hired by church members which I appreciated even though I never felt comfortable as a secretary or bookkeeper but I gave it the best that I could. Once you have been there you get a completely different perspective.

[Bob Evans]

Sara,
In responding to your comment, I'm not meaning to pick on you, but am just addressing thoughts that many people have, thoughts that I once had too. . .

I used to work for a Mission and worked closely with women on welfare. (Indeed, when I was a young child, my own family depended heavily on government support.)

When I first started at the Mission, I had a lot of misperceptions about welfare recipients. I definitely viewed them as lazy and unmotivated. But after 9 years, my perceptions had changed drastically. Among the things I learned were the following:

1)Most of the moms wanted to work and gained a sense of fulfillment whenever they did. The problem was that most couldn't afford to work. Who can work a minimum wage job AND pay for childcare and bus transportation? Unless they worked 2 jobs and almost never saw their kids, at the end of the week, the minimum wage workers had less money than the welfare recipients. Thus, many of the women were, ironically, doing the responsible thing by not working.

2)The moms who were able to work almost always had family support, such as a sister or grandparents who helped watch the kids. But many of the poor don't have this kind of support -- which is part of the reason why they are in the predicament they are in in the first place.

3)I wasn't a fan of welfare reform because the moms I knew went to work on 2nd shift and their kids ran the streets. Since I no longer work closely in it, I don't know how welfare reform is being applied today, but in the 90's in Peoria, the government wasn't guaranteeing daycare or transportation. Back then in Peoria, the buses didn't run late, and the moms had to figure out how to get home from their second shift job that would go to 11 p.m. or later. And then their minimum wage jobs rarely gave them 40 hours, and often the hours they did get would be haphazard, making it nearly impossible to get a second job.

4)Most of the moms in poverty I know who have been able to support their kids through work are working 2-3 jobs. They work far more hours than I do, and are often in manual labor kinds of work.

5)I never met a woman who was able to support a drug habit solely on welfare checks. Maybe she exists out there -- but I haven't met her. In fact, most of the welfare recipients I knew didn't use illegal drugs at all. And in the rare instances when they did, they almost without exception turned to prostitution as a way to support the habit.

6)Having lived in an impoverished neighborhood for 18 years, I can tell you that most of the serious drug users don't live here at all. Despite the perception, the poor aren't the ones primarily funding the drug trade. Even the police officers here will tell you this. Most of those buying the drugs are white middle class people, especially males in their 30s or 40s. I can take you to a drug house and we can sit outside and watch the cars that pull up. They tend to be rather nice vehicles actually -- clearly men with some means, with some decent jobs, in fancy pick-up trucks and whatnot. There's no need for drug pushers. The white people come to my neighborhood to pick up the drugs.

7)Most of the money that welfare recipients receive is spent in our economy. These dollars are almost immediately recycled. It's a rare welfare recipient who can save much of any money, and even if they were able to do so, they'd be penalized. (At least, that was the law in the 90s -- they were not allowed to have much of any money in a savings account.)

8)The big-time welfare recipients are the corporate welfare recipients. I personally benefit from corporate welfare, and I benefit way more than any of the poor moms I've met.

tonya

Tonya

Did your correct in your assessment. One of the functions I perform for my mission is to go to churchs and give the same speech.

Did you work for Peoria Rescue Mission?

[Tonya Sneed]

Tonya

Did you work for Peoria Rescue Mission?

No, for the South Side Mission. The Rescue Mission houses men, while the South Side Mission houses women and children. (And then there are other places that take in families with both parents.) I mostly worked in the youth department, and did gobs of home visits through my work, and got to know many families intimately.

I absolutely loved working for the Mission -- just didn't like working second shift 'cause I didn't get to see enough of my hubby. So I went into education. . .and am now in my 10th year of teaching.

[Sara Sheppard]

Sara, this is the table of the results from Obama's tax plan. So, unless you make over $227,000, you should not see a tax decrease.

Obama's Plan
Income Avg. tax bill

$603K and up . . . . +$115,974
$227K-$603K . . . . .+$12
$161K-$227K . . . . .-$2,789
$112K-$161K . . . . .-$2,204
$66K-$112K . . . . .-$1,290
$38K-$66K . . . . .-$1,042
$19K-$38K . . . . .-$892
Under $19K . . . . .-$567


Cindy,

I understand that is "plan" but its still election season. Do any of us really believe the "plans" which we hear during election season will be the reality once the election is over?

I don't.

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

Sara,
In responding to your comment, I'm not meaning to pick on you, but am just addressing thoughts that many people have, thoughts that I once had too. . .

I used to work for a Mission and worked closely with women on welfare. (Indeed, when I was a young child, my own family depended heavily on government support.)

When I first started at the Mission, I had a lot of misperceptions about welfare recipients. I definitely viewed them as lazy and unmotivated. But after 9 years, my perceptions had changed drastically. Among the things I learned were the following:

1)Most of the moms wanted to work and gained a sense of fulfillment whenever they did. The problem was that most couldn't afford to work. Who can work a minimum wage job AND pay for childcare and bus transportation? Unless they worked 2 jobs and almost never saw their kids, at the end of the week, the minimum wage workers had less money than the welfare recipients. Thus, many of the women were, ironically, doing the responsible thing by not working.

2)The moms who were able to work almost always had family support, such as a sister or grandparents who helped watch the kids. But many of the poor don't have this kind of support -- which is part of the reason why they are in the predicament they are in in the first place.

3)I wasn't a fan of welfare reform because the moms I knew went to work on 2nd shift and their kids ran the streets. Since I no longer work closely in it, I don't know how welfare reform is being applied today, but in the 90's in Peoria, the government wasn't guaranteeing daycare or transportation. Back then in Peoria, the buses didn't run late, and the moms had to figure out how to get home from their second shift job that would go to 11 p.m. or later. And then their minimum wage jobs rarely gave them 40 hours, and often the hours they did get would be haphazard, making it nearly impossible to get a second job.

4)Most of the moms in poverty I know who have been able to support their kids through work are working 2-3 jobs. They work far more hours than I do, and are often in manual labor kinds of work.

5)I never met a woman who was able to support a drug habit solely on welfare checks. Maybe she exists out there -- but I haven't met her. In fact, most of the welfare recipients I knew didn't use illegal drugs at all. And in the rare instances when they did, they almost without exception turned to prostitution as a way to support the habit.

6)Having lived in an impoverished neighborhood for 18 years, I can tell you that most of the serious drug users don't live here at all. Despite the perception, the poor aren't the ones primarily funding the drug trade. Even the police officers here will tell you this. Most of those buying the drugs are white middle class people, especially males in their 30s or 40s. I can take you to a drug house and we can sit outside and watch the cars that pull up. They tend to be rather nice vehicles actually -- clearly men with some means, with some decent jobs, in fancy pick-up trucks and whatnot. There's no need for drug pushers. The white people come to my neighborhood to pick up the drugs.

7)Most of the money that welfare recipients receive is spent in our economy. These dollars are almost immediately recycled. It's a rare welfare recipient who can save much of any money, and even if they were able to do so, they'd be penalized. (At least, that was the law in the 90s -- they were not allowed to have much of any money in a savings account.)

8)The big-time welfare recipients are the corporate welfare recipients. I personally benefit from corporate welfare, and I benefit way more than any of the poor moms I've met.

tonya


Tonya -

All of this is MY point too. We need welfare REFORM. Its not working. If people are better off NOT working than working (be it for childcare, transportation, or whatever) then the system is not working. There are lots of jobs to be done in this country. In TN, "low income" workers get drastically reduced (and often free) childcare and we have TNCare for uninsured children. I have no problem with either of those programs. (And no, I'm not talking about a certain ethnic group of people. My entire extended family - cousins aunt/uncles on one side of my family are what I would refer to as "welfare junkies"

I also never said that everyone on welfare fits in to my early description. However, the fact is, MANY MANY do. I used to work in an inner city school and the moms came to the school drugged up, dirty, etc but they had cable (for free) at their house, food stamps, and welfare checks to do absolutly NOTHING. I just think we need to make people responsible. If you collect a welfare check, it should not be okay to simply sit at home. Then you need to be enrolled in job-skills classes which should be offered for free or in drug rehab if that is the issue and I would certainly be okay with "welfare bridge" checks. Meaning if the only job you can find it at McDonald's and it won't pay your bills (and let's face it - it probably won't) then you get a welfare check that bridges the gap. But you should not just get a check for NOTHING. I personally don't think having children is a good enough excuse to not work. I have friends who work 2nd shift nursing jobs and have for years so only get to see their kids on the week-ends. I have many friends who work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. (I work full time as an accountant and part-time as a realtor).

I know not everyone fits the "mold" I described. Of course, there are going to be exceptions (those who are physically/mentally uncapable of work or a woman with a new born infant).

All I know is 3 of my 1st counsins have NEVER had jobs. Keep having babies by various men, smoke, drink, party all weekend and somehow have nicer homes and drive nicer cars than I do. They have researched online every available welfare program and trust me - they are getting it. They enroll in colleges and get "extra" money only to drop out and keep the money. Oh, and by then, they have gotten free childcare for their child so they continue to send their children to the free childcare while they run around all day long. My cousins have NO intention of ever working. In fact, when my cousins "baby" was going to start Kind. she literally said to me that she needs to get busy and have another baby so she doesn't lose some of her aid. And guess what - SHE DID. Something is NOT right about that.

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

P.S.

I'm finally reading Sunday's Peoria Journal Star newspaper, and, ironically, the featured story is about a woman working 3 jobs (and mentions her friends who also work 3 jobs). This woman is able to manage 3 jobs because her full time job has regular hours (she drives a bus for the disabled) and because one of her part-time jobs is her own business (a beauty salon) so she is able to set some of her own hours. Her other part-time job is as a nurse's aide at a nursing home, where she's on call. Unlike many welfare recipients, she's also able to work these kinds of hours because her children are grown.

She has to work long hours, by the way, in order to pay for her anti-rejection medicine (she had a kidney transplant).

Though I'm getting off the point of the thread, I found this paragraph especially of interest:
With some types of transplants, such as liver transplants. . .many transplant centers are faced with the dilemma of selecting prospective transplantees from waiting lists based on whether they can afford anti-rejection medications after the transplant. "What they have to decide is this: 'We've got a perfectly good liver, so why should we put it in someone we know will not be able to maintain it financially?'"

Then by all means, this woman should get the help she needs. There is no problem helping someone who is helping their self. That is what welfare is meant for...

Sara

[Cindi Hammons]

Sara, all we can do is go by either of the candidates "plans." There is no way possible to look into the future to see what will actually happen.

[Grandma Carolyn]

After the news today and the results, I'm glad the Republicans swallowed their pride and changed their policy.

This crisis was not just a United States of America problem. It would have world repercussions. If we go under the entire world finances would fail.

I am repeating what I am hearing the financial experts say on CNBC.

There was even mention of a great depression. If USA has a depression so go all the other Countries and Europe. Canada would be affected, also.

This Democrat is praising the Republican action of today. When the rubber starts rubbing the road they will take action.

I think they have just saved the world from a depression.
gc

[Grandma Carolyn]

It is going to be interesting who the short sellers are. Our system allowed greed to run rampant.

At 7:00pm tonight the White House and others are having a meeting to help us from complete failure. If they don't God help the entire world.

gc

[Grandma Carolyn]

"_______'s looming collapse pushed the nation's central bank to take the dramatic step of bailing out the company, fearing its failure could have resulted in greater financial instability, higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth and weaker national economic growth."

Can't we just sort of fill in the blank, here? Isn't that essentially the same thing that was said about Bear Stearns? And Freddie Mac? And Fannie Mae?

Lehman Brothers must really feel like they're the ugly step-sister in all this. How is they're the only ones who can't get a bailout?

Bruce it is easy to talk after the fear subsides. But, if the ship is sinking you better do something, whatever, it takes to stop it.

I wasn't in the great depression. I was born in 1943, I think we were able to come out of if after two world wars. I still remember that times were still hard when i was a young girl. No one seems to be grasping the reality of where we were headed. I refuse to hold on to political arguements when we are ALL going down.
gc

[Grandma Carolyn]

I'm no economist - just ask my wife! I do have a friend who is a senior vp in a company that does corporate financing who stays pretty close to what is going on in the financial markets, and his view is that AIG's collapse would have caused considerably more market instability and damage to our economy. All's I know that the way things are going with my 403b, my official retirement age has now been pushed to somewhere in my late 70's.

I have a personal interest in this economy, too. We have a 401k plan. And, we don't have twenty years for it to grow back.

We haven't lost it all yet, but it was down. I worry more about the world going into a great depression and no one knowing how to stop it. Maybe, they the White House is on it and helping to make the correction.

To do nothing was certain downward spiral with no stopping. I'll be watching the news about the decision they will be making tonight.

The President and Congress are meeting, supposedly in a bi-partisian meeting about this crisis and how to solve it.

gc

[Tonya Sneed]

Tonya -

All of this is MY point too. We need welfare REFORM. Its not working. If people are better off NOT working than working (be it for childcare, transportation, or whatever) then the system is not working. There are lots of jobs to be done in this country. In TN, "low income" workers get drastically reduced (and often free) childcare and we have TNCare for uninsured children. I have no problem with either of those programs. (And no, I'm not talking about a certain ethnic group of people. My entire extended family - cousins aunt/uncles on one side of my family are what I would refer to as "welfare junkies"

I also never said that everyone on welfare fits in to my early description. However, the fact is, MANY MANY do. I used to work in an inner city school and the moms came to the school drugged up, dirty, etc but they had cable (for free) at their house, food stamps, and welfare checks to do absolutly NOTHING. I just think we need to make people responsible. If you collect a welfare check, it should not be okay to simply sit at home. Then you need to be enrolled in job-skills classes which should be offered for free or in drug rehab if that is the issue and I would certainly be okay with "welfare bridge" checks. Meaning if the only job you can find it at McDonald's and it won't pay your bills (and let's face it - it probably won't) then you get a welfare check that bridges the gap. But you should not just get a check for NOTHING. I personally don't think having children is a good enough excuse to not work. I have friends who work 2nd shift nursing jobs and have for years so only get to see their kids on the week-ends. I have many friends who work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. (I work full time as an accountant and part-time as a realtor).

I know not everyone fits the "mold" I described. Of course, there are going to be exceptions (those who are physically/mentally uncapable of work or a woman with a new born infant).

All I know is 3 of my 1st counsins have NEVER had jobs. Keep having babies by various men, smoke, drink, party all weekend and somehow have nicer homes and drive nicer cars than I do. They have researched online every available welfare program and trust me - they are getting it. They enroll in colleges and get "extra" money only to drop out and keep the money. Oh, and by then, they have gotten free childcare for their child so they continue to send their children to the free childcare while they run around all day long. My cousins have NO intention of ever working. In fact, when my cousins "baby" was going to start Kind. she literally said to me that she needs to get busy and have another baby so she doesn't lose some of her aid. And guess what - SHE DID. Something is NOT right about that.

Sara


I think we may be in more agreement than not. I mean, I agree that the essential problem is that welfare (especially combined with subsidized housing and medical care) is better than minimum wage.

On the other hand, in all honesty, I never met a welfare recipient who had a car nicer than mine (and I drove a cheap little Geo Metro back then); in fact, I never met a welfare recipient who had a car at all. (I'm defining welfare recipient as someone who receives cash welfare benefits each month.)

For instance, back in the early 90s, I knew women who lived in the projects who had 2 children and who received approximately $270 per month in welfare cash benefits. They were required to pay 1/3 of their income for their apartments in the housing projects so women with 2 children paid $90 for rent and utilities and had approximately $180 remaining. (They also received food stamps and medical care.) Of course, it would be nearly impossible to own a car on $180 a month, when some of that money obviously has to be used for non-food essentials.

Women in the projects who did have cars almost always had jobs -- usually more than one job -- as I mentioned above. Sometimes there might be a boyfriend with a car, but I honestly can't recall a single mom on welfare with a vehicle. And, every mom on welfare I knew lived in subsidized housing, often substandard housing.

I'm not all that familiar with how welfare reform has played out. . .and maybe today there are more ways to cheat the system. I do know a young man who got money from the government in advance to attend a community college and who blew the money on partying. The money was intended to help him with living expenses for the entire semester, but he wasted all of it in about a month's time, stopped going to school, and soon didn't even have the cash for a bus ticket. However, as a result of dropping out and flunking his courses, he was billed by the government and forced to repay the money for those classes before he could attend again. He eventually did repay the money and reentered college. I don't know how he's doing now, and I kind of think he probably didn't finish because he hasn't dropped by in a long time. (He probably doesn't want to tell me.) But, ya know, he had one of the roughest childhoods of any kid I knew during my time at the Mission, so I always feel doubly merciful toward him. . .

You mention the moms being "dirty." Through the many home visits I made, I did see a lot of unkempt houses. I remember complaining to Jim (my hubby) about one mom in particular, how her apartment would be trashed and she would be in bed at all hours of the day. She wasn't a partier and she wasn't taking drugs; she simply didn't seem to care about anything. Jim said to me, "Maybe she's depressed." I eventually concluded that this was the problem precisely -- not just with her, but with a number of the women I dealt with. So many of them felt rather worthless; they would even tell me this.

Incidentally, Jim and I saw the aforementioned woman at a little restaurant a few years ago. She was cleaned up, had her hair neatly combed (something I never saw in my many visits to her place), had lost a substantial amount of weight, and was smiling lots. I was so happy to see this. :basic01

tonya

[Susan Unger]

All I know is 3 of my 1st counsins have NEVER had jobs. Keep having babies by various men, smoke, drink, party all weekend and somehow have nicer homes and drive nicer cars than I do. They have researched online every available welfare program and trust me - they are getting it. They enroll in colleges and get "extra" money only to drop out and keep the money. Oh, and by then, they have gotten free childcare for their child so they continue to send their children to the free childcare while they run around all day long. My cousins have NO intention of ever working. In fact, when my cousins "baby" was going to start Kind. she literally said to me that she needs to get busy and have another baby so she doesn't lose some of her aid. And guess what - SHE DID. Something is NOT right about that.

Sara If you don't mind me asking...I am curious how you were able to rise such an environment? Usually, we act like our environment, not rise above it.

[Herb Newell]

OK, now that your done gloating lets get real!

It is not uncharactoristic, inconsistant or somehow unconservative of the government to step in when it is necessary to protect the overall health of the market economy. The size and importance of each of these businesses to it's market segment was on a scale that their failure might have created cascading defaults among smaller dependent businesses, which might have put the whole market at risk. When we rescued Chrysler, it was not because we liked Iacoca, but rather because Chrysler was the #3 automaker in the US and the administration realized that the cost to the economy to let it go under was just too high.

Those of you who demand your pound of flesh can be assured that, while the leadership of these companies have survived for the day -- only because some continuity is vitaly import -- they will not be in charge of the reorganized companies.

Leehman's is the case that proves the point. Leehman's was a big company, but not nearly to not big enough to affect the whole market. Hence it was allowed to die an unceremoniously quick death and the effect of it's passing was negligible. Management thought they had worked out a buyout that would save the company and when that fell through the company went bankrupt. Companies large and small do this every day and the market adjusts.

Even though I think that the leaders of these three companies richly deserve to taste the same fate as others who run their companies into the ground, I for one, am thankfull that the administration can "hold their nose" and intervene when absolutely necessary. That's not socialism, it's "big picture" conservatism.

[Sara Sheppard]

If you don't mind me asking...I am curious how you were able to rise such an environment? Usually, we act like our environment, not rise above it.


Well my uncle married a woman who had lived more like this in her family and when they married, they lived a life outside of church and ended up raising children who made bad choices and ended up in their messes.

On the other hand, a small town nazarene preacher knocked on my parent's door one day before I was born and invited them to church. They went and that has made ALL the difference.

So, to answer your question...God's grace and a pastor who was willing to knock on a door of two young rough people and invite them to church.

Sara

[Grandma Carolyn]

I posted a link to an interview in which an economist explains why some of the bailouts have been happening. Really, you can just do some research on "Credit Default Swaps" and see how we've gotten to where we are. I found it more than intriguing.

Where's the link?

gc

[Grandma Carolyn]

OK, now that your done gloating lets get real!

It is not uncharactoristic, inconsistant or somehow unconservative of the government to step in when it is necessary to protect the overall health of the market economy. The size and importance of each of these businesses to it's market segment was on a scale that their failure might have created cascading defaults among smaller dependent businesses, which might have put the whole market at risk. When we rescued Chrysler, it was not because we liked Iacoca, but rather because Chrysler was the #3 automaker in the US and the administration realized that the cost to the economy to let it go under was just too high.

Those of you who demand your pound of flesh can be assured that, while the leadership of these companies have survived for the day -- only because some continuity is vitaly import -- they will not be in charge of the reorganized companies.

Leehman's is the case that proves the point. Leehman's was a big company, but not nearly to not big enough to affect the whole market. Hence it was allowed to die an unceremoniously quick death and the effect of it's passing was negligible. Management thought they had worked out a buyout that would save the company and when that fell through the company went bankrupt. Companies large and small do this every day and the market adjusts.

Even though I think that the leaders of these three companies richly deserve to taste the same fate as others who run their companies into the ground, I for one, am thankfull that the administration can "hold their nose" and intervene when absolutely necessary. That's not socialism, it's "big picture" conservatism.

That's not what I call conservatism. I call it wisdom. The Democrats just met with the Republicans in a Congressional meeting and they were both in agreement that this would be best for the Country to go along with Paulson and the US Treasury. The news will be all over the networks in the morning.

Carolyn

[Bob Evans]

Well my uncle married a woman who had lived more like this in her family and when they married, they lived a life outside of church and ended up raising children who made bad choices and ended up in their messes.

On the other hand, a small town nazarene preacher knocked on my parent's door one day before I was born and invited them to church. They went and that has made ALL the difference.

So, to answer your question...God's grace and a pastor who was willing to knock on a door of two young rough people and invite them to church.

Sara

Sara

I am co teaching a class on urban church planting at a local seminary. I have read extensivly and I work with men and woman who have made a series of bad choices in their life. There are some that are as you described. But there are also some that would do better with a little help.

Your own experience points to the intervention of a pastor as key in lifting your family out of generational poverty. I think some sort of intervention is the key. Pulling your self up by your bootstraps is almost a myth. Someone needs to intervene and help them along.

Giving money doesen't fix anthing in the long term. But it does feed babies who should not be penilized for their parents bad choices. So I can live with that. But the church is in a unique position to be that extra help. It may be a visit from a pastor. It may be low cost baby sitting. It may be helping someone fill out financial aid papers and walk them through the maze of college admission. It may be something else. But someone is going to need to help otherwise the problem will never be solved.

Here is a link to a series of articles in the New York times you might find helpful

http://www.nytimes.com/class

[Sara Sheppard]

Sara

I am co teaching a class on urban church planting at a local seminary. I have read extensivly and I work with men and woman who have made a series of bad choices in their life. There are some that are as you described. But there are also some that would do better with a little help.

Your own experience points to the intervention of a pastor as key in lifting your family out of generational poverty. I think some sort of intervention is the key. Pulling your self up by your bootstraps is almost a myth. Someone needs to intervene and help them along.

Giving money doesen't fix anthing in the long term. But it does feed babies who should not be penilized for their parents bad choices. So I can live with that. But the church is in a unique position to be that extra help. It may be a visit from a pastor. It may be low cost baby sitting. It may be helping someone fill out financial aid papers and walk them through the maze of college admission. It may be something else. But someone is going to need to help otherwise the problem will never be solved.

Here is a link to a series of articles in the New York times you might find helpful

http://www.nytimes.com/class


Bob....that is EXACTLY my point of why taxing people more to use money for welfare systems doesn't work. Let people keep their money and support ministries that they choose which DO work. Trust me, at Trevecca Community we have more than I can even begin to count that are helping former prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics. We are working hand-in-hand with government agencies and seeing lives transformed. But its not because of welfare. Its because of people and ministries. Just last night a job-skills class was being taught to people who are in our "jail ministry". That's life-changing....Welfare basically gives money to a situation but doesn't help people get out of their situation. Ministry meets those basic human needs too of course to be fed but then goes beyond that. I'm amazed every week when I see how the lives (hundreds) are being transformed in our local congregation. All my posts have NOTHING to do with pulling oneself up by your bootstraps. We ALL need help...including me. I'm just not of the belief that welfare checks are the supreme answer.

I think you and I are a lot closer than it appears. The thing is, I just don't happen to trust the government to be the one to fix it. I think churches are a much better place!!! (Unfortunatly though - we've failed in many ways - and I mean that as a large church view not of just the Nazarene church). But people can't be taxed more and still support ministries too. That's where this conversation started - that I only have so many dollars in my check. If the gov't takes more, then I have less to support ministries at my local church.

Sara

[Ryan Scott]

Where's the link?

gc

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=22503

[Bruce Carriker]

No, Bruce. The problem is that Democrats don't really understand true conservative Republicans. We're more apt to tell you the real problem is Congress and lately it doesn't seem to make much difference as to who is in charge.

Most American's agree that Congress is the problem. That's why they voted to change Congress two years ago. Now they need to change the President, so the Congress can actually do what they were elected to do, without having a Presidential veto waiting for every piece of meaningful legislation they pass.

[Bob Evans]

Bob....that is EXACTLY my point of why taxing people more to use money for welfare systems doesn't work. Let people keep their money and support ministries that they choose which DO work. Trust me, at Trevecca Community we have more than I can even begin to count that are helping former prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics. We are working hand-in-hand with government agencies and seeing lives transformed. But its not because of welfare. Its because of people and ministries. Just last night a job-skills class was being taught to people who are in our "jail ministry". That's life-changing....Welfare basically gives money to a situation but doesn't help people get out of their situation. Ministry meets those basic human needs too of course to be fed but then goes beyond that. I'm amazed every week when I see how the lives (hundreds) are being transformed in our local congregation. All my posts have NOTHING to do with pulling oneself up by your bootstraps. We ALL need help...including me. I'm just not of the belief that welfare checks are the supreme answer.

I think you and I are a lot closer than it appears. The thing is, I just don't happen to trust the government to be the one to fix it. I think churches are a much better place!!! (Unfortunatly though - we've failed in many ways - and I mean that as a large church view not of just the Nazarene church). But people can't be taxed more and still support ministries too. That's where this conversation started - that I only have so many dollars in my check. If the gov't takes more, then I have less to support ministries at my local church.

Sara

Sara until the day the church can cover the costs of feeding and clothing the poor and those who made bad choices we need the government to help us. What is really needed are individual Christians to engage indivudually with poor and struggling people. I work for an agrm rescue mission. I can usually come up with some health insurance and some mone for people. What I really need are people who are sane sober believers to life people up. And it might be somethingas simple as helping someone to fill out a job description or give them a ride. If all a person has ever seen was poverty and bad decisions then it will probably be repeated. But if some one can become a friend and a guide then the better was can be shown and seen. We would all probably make more of a difference if we spent more time befriending the struggling then compalining about the government. If we believe Christ is the hope of the world then we need to do something aobut it.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Bob, thank you for that post. I think a lot of our problems stem from the fact that few of us know "real" poverty or have attempted to befriend someone in real poverty. We have homeless and many needy people even in my little town.

As far as working at Wal-Mart, yes, at the one I worked at they had interviews every Wednesday at 10 am. Need a job? Stop by then. If you don't get it, try again next week.

One of the biggest problems with WMT, however, is that they consider 28 hrs/wk "full-time." That's all they would guarantee as a "full-time" employee. That meant I was bringing home about $200-250 every two weeks. Perfect for a college student. Not so much for a single mom. I knew couples who worked there "full-time" and were way, way below the poverty line. And although WMT offers health care for employees after working a certain am't, and other things like stock sharing, the fact is very few people can afford to take advantage of those things since they're making very little in the first place, and so the states' public health care systems end up being WMT's defacto health care.

The solution to poverty is much more than "get a job, buddy." Especially when that job is at Wal-Mart.

edited to add - apparently WMT has changed it's "full-time" status to 35hrs/wk. since I worked there. That nicely coincided with their decision to increase the wait time for their crummy health ins. for part-time employees (now 34 hrs/wk or less) to 2 *years* of working there. And you can't add your spouse or children to the plan. Lovely. So the change was not to benefit more people to become full-time but to eliminate people who were eligible for health insurance. Nice.

[Tonya Sneed]

Bob....that is EXACTLY my point of why taxing people more to use money for welfare systems doesn't work. Let people keep their money and support ministries that they choose which DO work. Trust me, at Trevecca Community we have more than I can even begin to count that are helping former prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics. We are working hand-in-hand with government agencies and seeing lives transformed. But its not because of welfare. Its because of people and ministries. Just last night a job-skills class was being taught to people who are in our "jail ministry". That's life-changing....Welfare basically gives money to a situation but doesn't help people get out of their situation. Ministry meets those basic human needs too of course to be fed but then goes beyond that. I'm amazed every week when I see how the lives (hundreds) are being transformed in our local congregation. All my posts have NOTHING to do with pulling oneself up by your bootstraps. We ALL need help...including me. I'm just not of the belief that welfare checks are the supreme answer.

I think you and I are a lot closer than it appears. The thing is, I just don't happen to trust the government to be the one to fix it. I think churches are a much better place!!! (Unfortunatly though - we've failed in many ways - and I mean that as a large church view not of just the Nazarene church). But people can't be taxed more and still support ministries too. That's where this conversation started - that I only have so many dollars in my check. If the gov't takes more, then I have less to support ministries at my local church.

Sara


I think that's remarkable that your church is helping hundreds of people to transform their lives.

The Mission where I worked was overtly Christian, and didn't accept any government funds, but I can't say that I saw the transformation of hundreds of people, unless one is solely talking about spiritual transformation, and even then, I doubt it was hundreds.

As far as getting people out of poverty, it rarely happened. For instance, I was in charge of an after school tutoring program, and I had hopes that by matching youth with mentors from outside our impoverished community that the kids would begin to value education and see what it could do for them. I have watched those kids grow up (most are now in their 20s and 30s), and the vast majority of them have repeated the patterns of their parents. Most remain in poverty. At one point, I blamed out-of-wedlock pregnancies for the poverty, but instead I have noticed that even the young women who didn't have children are still in poverty. With very few exceptions, most of them still live here, where I live, in the inner city.

And in the cases of the handful of women I knew who were addicted to crack cocaine, I don't know any that overcame it. They are still prostituting themselves, in and out of prison, and in and out of drug rehab. I just saw one of them at the gas station the other day -- she had the telltale signs that she's still addicted: very thin, talkative and nervous-acting.

I'm not saying that things are hopeless, but I think the cycle of poverty is enormously difficult to overcome. Over time I gave up on the goal of overcoming it. Eventually I decided that my purpose was to live among the poor and learn from them. :basic01 Having been poor myself as a young child, I probably relate more to the poor than I do to the middle class. I like that I don't have to keep my yard a certain way, and if I want to paint my house pink, no one will say a word. :basic01 Yes, there are a few pink houses here. :basic01 :basic01 :basic01

tonya

[Tonya Sneed]

OK, now that your done gloating lets get real!

It is not uncharactoristic, inconsistant or somehow unconservative of the government to step in when it is necessary to protect the overall health of the market economy. The size and importance of each of these businesses to it's market segment was on a scale that their failure might have created cascading defaults among smaller dependent businesses, which might have put the whole market at risk. When we rescued Chrysler, it was not because we liked Iacoca, but rather because Chrysler was the #3 automaker in the US and the administration realized that the cost to the economy to let it go under was just too high.

Those of you who demand your pound of flesh can be assured that, while the leadership of these companies have survived for the day -- only because some continuity is vitaly import -- they will not be in charge of the reorganized companies.

Leehman's is the case that proves the point. Leehman's was a big company, but not nearly to not big enough to affect the whole market. Hence it was allowed to die an unceremoniously quick death and the effect of it's passing was negligible. Management thought they had worked out a buyout that would save the company and when that fell through the company went bankrupt. Companies large and small do this every day and the market adjusts.

Even though I think that the leaders of these three companies richly deserve to taste the same fate as others who run their companies into the ground, I for one, am thankfull that the administration can "hold their nose" and intervene when absolutely necessary. That's not socialism, it's "big picture" conservatism.


I hear what you're saying, but the government's bail-out is not really capitalism, right? Aren't insurance companies and finance institutions and banks and whatnot that make poor decisions and mismanage funds supposed to fail, according to capitalism? They aren't supposed to get billions and billions of dollars from the government, right? What did I read was the amount of the AIG bailout? $85 billion? Something outrageous like that.

Hmm. . .It's a good thing Bush's push for the privatization of social security didn't go anywhere. And despite McCain's claims to have never supported it, he's on the record, even on tape, saying otherwise.

[Bob Evans]

I think that's remarkable that your church is helping hundreds of people to transform their lives.

The Mission where I worked was overtly Christian, and didn't accept any government funds, but I can't say that I saw the transformation of hundreds of people, unless one is solely talking about spiritual transformation, and even then, I doubt it was hundreds.

As far as getting people out of poverty, it rarely happened. For instance, I was in charge of an after school tutoring program, and I had hopes that by matching youth with mentors from outside our impoverished community that the kids would begin to value education and see what it could do for them. I have watched those kids grow up (most are now in their 20s and 30s), and the vast majority of them have repeated the patterns of their parents. Most remain in poverty. At one point, I blamed out-of-wedlock pregnancies for the poverty, but instead I have noticed that even the young women who didn't have children are still in poverty. With very few exceptions, most of them still live here, where I live, in the inner city.

And in the cases of the handful of women I knew who were addicted to crack cocaine, I don't know any that overcame it. They are still prostituting themselves, in and out of prison, and in and out of drug rehab. I just saw one of them at the gas station the other day -- she had the telltale signs that she's still addicted: very thin, talkative and nervous-acting.

I'm not saying that things are hopeless, but I think the cycle of poverty is enormously difficult to overcome. Over time I gave up on the goal of overcoming it. Eventually I decided that my purpose was to live among the poor and learn from them. :basic01 Having been poor myself as a young child, I probably relate more to the poor than I do to the middle class. I like that I don't have to keep my yard a certain way, and if I want to paint my house pink, no one will say a word. :basic01 Yes, there are a few pink houses here. :basic01 :basic01 :basic01

tonya

Tonya

We don't have huge numbers either. But our best success is in the formation of relationships with people and showing them how and encourageing them to be more successful in life. I can't find enough people to see that as a missional involvement. But I think that more than anything else makes a difference.

I applaud you for moving into the inner city neighborhood. I live in one as well. And we found as we fixed up the outside of our house our neighbors noticed and began to take some pride in their houses as well.

We all need to do our part. Extra money is helpful but I firmly believe we can make a difference one person at a time.

[Tonya Sneed]

Tonya

We don't have huge numbers either. But our best success is in the formation of relationships with people and showing them how and encourageing them to be more successful in life. I can't find enough people to see that as a missional involvement. But I think that more than anything else makes a difference.

I applaud you for moving into the inner city neighborhood. I live in one as well. And we found as we fixed up the outside of our house our neighbors noticed and began to take some pride in their houses as well.

We all need to do our part. Extra money is helpful but I firmly believe we can make a difference one person at a time.


And I applaud you, too! Ya know, if one can accept the risks, there are many benefits. There are an awful lot of beautiful people here. And, wow, it's awfully cheap living. I'm able to give a substantial amount of money away because I'm not worried about a mortgage payment. In fact, when we did have a mortgage, our house payments were $110 a month. Think of that: $110 a month. It was awesome. :basic01

[Diane Likens]

How long can your country afford these massive bailouts?

We CAN'T!

[Bruce Carriker]

Sara, this is the table of the results from Obama's tax plan. So, unless you make over $227,000, you should not see a tax decrease.

Obama's Plan
Income Avg. tax bill

$603K and up . . . . +$115,974
$227K-$603K . . . . .+$12
$161K-$227K . . . . .-$2,789
$112K-$161K . . . . .-$2,204
$66K-$112K . . . . .-$1,290
$38K-$66K . . . . .-$1,042
$19K-$38K . . . . .-$892
Under $19K . . . . .-$567

Cindi!!!! STOP IT NOW!!!! This is an election year. You can't go around spreading truth! Especially when it proves the champion of conservatives to be lying.

[Bruce Carriker]

And, no, I have not officially decided who I am going to vote for this time. I was seriously considering Hillary, but now I'm really quite undecided.

If you were seriously considering Hillary Clinton based on issues, there is no way you can become a McCain supporter, based on issue. You can support him for emotional reasons...anger or disappointment that Hillary lost. You can support him out of the fear he is spreading about Obama...most of it untrue. But you can't support McCain based on issue.

My problem with McCain is I just think he's way too old and doesn't really seem to know what he stands for.

Since I'm older than you, I guess his age doesn't bother me all that much. But, given that he was against off-shore drilling until he was for it; for deregulation of the financial industry until he was against it; against the bailout of AIG until he was for it; and thought the economy was fundamentally sound until the thought it was in crisis; I can certainly see how you aren't sure he knows what he stands for.

My problem with Obama is that I think he's going to increase taxes on a woman like me (single, no kids, educated, and making a pretty decent living) to turn around and hand it to someone who has numerous kids and no job.

Cindi has already posted the tax changes that will occur under Obama's plan. Unless you're definition of "pretty decent living" is making a quarter of a million dollars a year, then you will not see a tax increase and may well see your taxes go DOWN under Obama's plan.

Don't get me wrong - the kids need fed and I'm all for helping feed and educate them. The problem is, the money that will be taken from me and given to this other woman will most likely NOT be used for food or education to help the children she has. It will be used on drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes.

Sara, I believe from your "body of work"...all your previous posts I've read here over months and years...that you are a concerned, compassionate person. So it bothers me to see you buy into this "radical right wing" stereotype of "welfare moms". WIC and "food stamps" now come to most recipients in the form of a government issued debit card. That card cannot be used to purchase any of the things you mention.

Will there always be abuse? Sure. Will there always be some small percentage of recipients who walk out of the grocery store, sell their groceries for cash, and then go to the crack or crystal meth dealer on the corner? There will. But by far, the majority of money spent by the government for "food stamps" and WIC goes to children and families who actually use it for what it is intended.

Sorry...but I lose my motivation to get up and go to work everyday when my money is taken for that. I would much rather the government trust me with that money and I will choose to use it to support programs at my local church where I KNOW the money gets used for feeding the hungry and mentoring children with little education.

Why is it that a small percentage of abuse in a federal program causes you to lose all faith in that program; but the small percentage of fraud, graft, embezzlement and abuse that also occurs in church-run programs does not cause you to lose faith in them?

I want to see SERIOUS welfare reform that tells people - you have to work. I'm sorry, but there are jobs people. McDonald's is hiring. So is Walmart. GET A JOB already......

Here you sound like a truly heartless Republican. Congrats! Perhaps I was wrong in my earlier assessment.

Since you are not a parent, I do not expect you to understand. But let me explain something to you. When you are a parent, you can swallow a lot of pride when your children's welfare is at stake. McDonald's has NO BENEFITS. As addressed elsewhere by others, Wal-Mart makes a joke of the term "full-time" employee. I have a good friend who quit as a manager at Wal-Mart because he felt it was compromising him as a Christian to treat his workers the way Wal-Mart required him to treat them.

When a single mother goes to work, odds are she is not going to jump straight into a job that will allow her to fully support her family. Yet the level at which we cut off government support is ridiculously low. And for most programs, there is no transitional phase. If you are above a certain income level, your benefits are not phased out...they just stop.

Good childcare, if you can find it, will cost you as much as a "full-time" job at Wal-Mart pays. Great! So now, how do you eat and pay the rent? And heaven forbid your child gets sick, because once you go to work (unless they offer benefits), there's little or no medical coverage for your kids.

Your idea that McDonald's and Wal-Mart are meaningful ways out of poverty for unemployed, single parents is either hopelessly out of touch in almost a McCain-esque way; or brutally cruel.

I also want to see SERIOUS immigraiton reform and not the kind that either a) kicks everyone out or b) welcomes every criminal from around the world. Somehwere in between has got to be a better answer. But I do think it is UN-American for us to build walls. What does the statue of liberty stand for? Aren't almost 100% of us decendent of immigrants only 4-5 generations back?

Want to slow illegal immigration AND help those unemployed single parents you loathe so much? Start putting EMPLOYERS in jail for hiring illegal workers. As it is now...and I know this from a friend of mine who operates a large farm...they just factor in the fines for employing illegals into their cost of doing business. If they don't get caught this year, great! If they get caught, the fines are already in the budget.

When employers wail and moan, "American workers won't do this job..." they leave out the rest of the sentence: "...for what I'm willing to pay." I don't care what the job is, there is some pay level at which Americans WILL DO THAT JOB. They just don't want to pay that much. And the government merely slaps their wrists, shakes a finger at them, and says, "Bad, bad business! Don't you do that again." And all the while they're winking, assuring businesses that if they do it again, nothing worse is going to happen.

[William Hunter]

At last count it is the dems who have the majority in the congress. That dem. lead congress has done nothing for two years. So where does the blame really belong---equally in both parties.

[Meghan Schoonover]

Your idea that McDonald's and Wal-Mart are meaningful ways out of poverty for unemployed, single parents is either hopelessly out of touch in almost a McCain-esque way; or brutally cruel.

This is absolutely true. Working at WMT is not a way out of poverty.

Speaking of gov't benefits, I have a family member who is on permanent disability. She finished a degree and is currently looking for a part-time job. She is unable to work full-time or drive any sort of distance b/c of her health problems. She *wants* to work, but the cut-off for working is so ridiculous that she'll lose her benefits (which she needs!) by working. She continues to look and interview for viable part-time work while volunteering in her community, family, and church. When I think of gov't benefits I think of her, and I can't imagine more where I'd rather my tax dollars go. To make her work full-time would kill her, literally, and I'd much rather keep her alive. ;)

[Sara Sheppard]

If you were seriously considering Hillary Clinton based on issues, there is no way you can become a McCain supporter, based on issue. You can support him for emotional reasons...anger or disappointment that Hillary lost. You can support him out of the fear he is spreading about Obama...most of it untrue. But you can't support McCain based on issue.

I never said I was going to support McCain. And I also never said I supported Hillary on issues. The fact is, I don't support any of them on issues. None of them line up with mine....








Cindi has already posted the tax changes that will occur under Obama's plan. Unless you're definition of "pretty decent living" is making a quarter of a million dollars a year, then you will not see a tax increase and may well see your taxes go DOWN under Obama's plan.

I saw what Cindi posted and I know those are the 'facts' today. As I said in an earlier post, I just don't happen to believe most campaign promises - on either side. But especially as it relates to taxes.....I hope you are right about a tax cut with Obama. I'll take it. :)



Sara, I believe from your "body of work"...all your previous posts I've read here over months and years...that you are a concerned, compassionate person.

Thank you, on occassion, I try to be. ;)

WIC and "food stamps" now come to most recipients in the form of a government issued debit card. That card cannot be used to purchase any of the things you mention.

That's great to know. But, I still know people (PERSONALLY - not generally) who purchase meat with the food stamps to feed their dog. Better meat by the way, than I can afford to purchase to feed myself.

But by far, the majority of money spent by the government for "food stamps" and WIC goes to children and families who actually use it for what it is intended.

I agree, by far, the majority is used correctly. I said we need welfare reform. I never said it needs to be thrown out altogether...who knows, I might need it someday. But when we are talking millions of people - even a minority is a lot of money.


Why is it that a small percentage of abuse in a federal program causes you to lose all faith in that program; but the small percentage of fraud, graft, embezzlement and abuse that also occurs in church-run programs does not cause you to lose faith in them? I don't know of any in the local churches I have supported. That's why people need to make wise choices where they give support. Find out what is happening, how money is spent, what controls are in place, and then see if there is actual PROGRESS in the lives of people. As Bob was pointing out, money is not going to fix the problem. It helps, but relationships are what help people....




Since you are not a parent, I do not expect you to understand. Now that is a pretty low blow to a woman who is unable to have children of her own....

But let me explain something to you. When you are a parent, you can swallow a lot of pride when your children's welfare is at stake. McDonald's has NO BENEFITS. As addressed elsewhere by others, Wal-Mart makes a joke of the term "full-time" employee. I have a good friend who quit as a manager at Wal-Mart because he felt it was compromising him as a Christian to treat his workers the way Wal-Mart required him to treat them.

I just threw out two names of companies we all might know. My point is that, with the right kind of welfare reform, people should be able to work and not have benefits cut off. I would prefer subsidizing low-income jobs and helping with childcare than giving money for no employment....I would prefer this even if it cost more. I think that mentally, physically, and emotionally - for the most part - people are better off employed.

When a single mother goes to work, odds are she is not going to jump straight into a job that will allow her to fully support her family. Yet the level at which we cut off government support is ridiculously low. And for most programs, there is no transitional phase. If you are above a certain income level, your benefits are not phased out...they just stop.

Again, this is why I said REFORM not throwing out welfare. We need to REFORM the system. If someone is TRYING - then we should support them. I explained how TN has great child-care assistance for parents who are working or in school but are low-income. We need to improve that type of thing all over the country to HELP parents who want to work but for whom child care is a major obstacle.

Good childcare, if you can find it, will cost you as much as a "full-time" job at Wal-Mart pays. Great! So now, how do you eat and pay the rent? And heaven forbid your child gets sick, because once you go to work (unless they offer benefits), there's little or no medical coverage for your kids.

See my comments above about the program in TN.

Your idea that McDonald's and Wal-Mart are meaningful ways out of poverty for unemployed, single parents is either hopelessly out of touch in almost a McCain-esque way; or brutally cruel. You are reading things I never typed. I never said it would get anyone out of poverty. We are not going to end poverty - sadly. But I still think people are better off working and our welfare system subsidizing the income rather than paying people not to work.

Want to slow illegal immigration AND help those unemployed single parents you loathe so much

Now, let me tell you something. No, I have never given birth to a child...so I am not a "mother". However, currently, I have custody of a 17 year old female who was living in total poverty and abuse in her home. The state removed her and she is now in my custody. I am trying to help get her medical help and education she has not had for years. Am I her mother - NO? Have I had to struggle and swallow a lot of pride trying to get help for this young lady? YES. Oh, and 4 years ago, I was the custodian for my nephew who was 18 months old at the time. I worked all day, did the child care thing, up all night with a sick crying baby and then did it all over again the next day. So, I do know something about what I speak about in terms of how hard it is. But, I guess it doesn't count cause I'm not a parent......

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

She *wants* to work, but the cut-off for working is so ridiculous that she'll lose her benefits (which she needs!) by working. She continues to look and interview for viable part-time work while volunteering in her community, family, and church. When I think of gov't benefits I think of her, and I can't imagine more where I'd rather my tax dollars go. To make her work full-time would kill her, literally, and I'd much rather keep her alive. ;)

Perfect example Meghan of why we need reform. If she wants to work and can on a limited basis, her benefits should be subsidy to what she would have earned full-time. The current system doesn't help people who want to help themselves. It needs reformed. So, when someone wants to at least try - we just kick them out of the programs. That stinks.....

[Bruce Carriker]

"Now that is a pretty low blow to a woman who is unable to have children of her own...."

I did not know that this was the case. I'm sorry if it felt like a "low blow".

Still, speaking from experience, there are things that most people just don't understand until they are responsible for the care and raising of another human life.

[Sara Sheppard]

Still, speaking from experience, there are things that most people just don't understand until they are responsible for the care and raising of another human life.


Did you see the end of my post? I am responsible for someone and have been in the past................I know the pressure of being a "single mother". I'm there now!

[Mark Metcalfe]

.... given that he [McCain] was against off-shore drilling until he was for it; for deregulation of the financial industry until he was against it; against the bailout of AIG until he was for it; and thought the economy was fundamentally sound until the thought it was in crisis; I can certainly see how you aren't sure he knows what he stands for.

Quoted from another thread [where it was noted that Obama changed his own tax proposal]:

"Well, we've certainly seen from the current administration that doggedly holding to your preconceived economic theories in the face of changing situations doesn't work at all." -- Bruce Carriker

:laughing

[William Hunter]

Instead of leading everyone to stop and take a breath, Harry Reid is leading the dems to bail out those who used poor financial judgment, etc. and got themselves to far in debt by knowingly making bad loans. They should be allowed to go belly up. More than 90% of mortgage holders pay their loans on time, year after year. A few are irresponsible and should not expect the rest of us to bail them out. Instead of buying modest homes, too many went after the $300,000 plus home and now the piper is coming to call. they should bare the results of their poor decisions.

[Judy McDonald]

I totally agree with Sara about the ill-advised moves made by the GOP recently, although any time the GOP has tried to put the brakes on entitlement spending, the Dems scream something about how mean we conservatives are or see a lowering of the percent of increase is interpreted as a cut in benefits....Remember Gingrich's Contract With America? I don't know much about economics either, but common sense would say, don't buy a house you can't afford, and don't have children you can't afford (make the CHOICE to abstain....not use abortion as birth control!) Greed isn't limited to corporate executives. Here's a piece from City Journal about what's happening in New York....and it's being duplicated all over the country:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0922hm.html

[Judy McDonald]

I've just seen my post, then it disappeared so I'm trying one more time...I agree that the GOP has done some stupid things, trying to be the nice guy, because every time they try to put the brakes on out-of-control spending, they get hammered by the Democrats and everybody knows how "mean" those nasty, wealthy Republicans are (that's a joke). Here's one example of runaway spending from NYC, but the same or similar scenario is happening all over the country. This comes from City Journal:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0922hm.html

[Bruce Carriker]

Did you see the end of my post? I am responsible for someone and have been in the past................I know the pressure of being a "single mother". I'm there now!

My comment was intended as an acknowledgment of your post.

[Bruce Carriker]

Instead of leading everyone to stop and take a breath, Harry Reid is leading the dems to bail out those who used poor financial judgment, etc. and got themselves to far in debt by knowingly making bad loans. They should be allowed to go belly up.

For once William and I absolutely agree...except I thought it was Wall Street that did this, and the Bush Administration that was bailing them out.:laughing:laughing:laughing:laughing:laughing

[Bruce Carriker]

...but common sense would say, don't buy a house you can't afford,

Wouldn't common sense ALSO dictate that bankers not loan money to people they have reason to believe cannot pay the money back?

There's plenty of greed and stupidity to go around here.

[Crystal Lutton]

Is it really fair to blame this on the GOP when we have a Democrat Congress that is in bed as deeply as they can be with the companies we just bailed out? I find it very hard to be shocked when the Congressmen and women who have been saying they want socialism to prevail and to see the end of the private sector happen to be in office when we buy out so many companies and happen to be huge recipients of funds for "campaigns" from them.

[Bruce Carriker]

Is it really fair to blame this on the GOP when we have a Democrat Congress that is in bed as deeply as they can be with the companies we just bailed out? I find it very hard to be shocked when the Congressmen and women who have been saying they want socialism to prevail and to see the end of the private sector happen to be in office when we buy out so many companies and happen to be huge recipients of funds for "campaigns" from them.

This problem didn't arise in the last twenty months, and the GOP controlled Congress for most of the decade prior to that. So yes, it's pretty fair to blame the GOP. They were the party of unbridled free markets and deregulation. This is the fruit of their labor.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Wouldn't common sense ALSO dictate that bankers not loan money to people they have reason to believe cannot pay the money back?

There's plenty of greed and stupidity to go around here.

It should. I am to understand that the reason banks made loans was so that poorer people could get into the owner's market and build equity. I heard Barney Frank's (d. MA) name associated with this legislation.

[Crystal Lutton]

I thought this was a very interesting article from Winter 2000 http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

I'm not endorsing the site or anything, I just thought it was interesting that it predicted exactly what is going on now.

[Bruce Carriker]

Quoted from another thread [where it was noted that Obama changed his own tax proposal]:

"Well, we've certainly seen from the current administration that doggedly holding to your preconceived economic theories in the face of changing situations doesn't work at all." -- Bruce Carriker

:laughing

There's a fine line between "spinning" and lying, Mark, and you're treading dangerously close to it. The post you refer to did not note that Obama "CHANGED HIS OWN TAX PROPOSAL", as you put it. In truth, here is what was said, that drew the response you quote above:

"In fact, Obama said that he would suspend a tax plan if the economy was in a difficult situation."

There is a big difference in the words "would suspend" and making such suspension contingent of the economic situation; and saying that he has already "CHANGED" (past tense) his own tax proposal. You took a contingent, future tense statement and turned it into a past tense statement, to serve your argument. Shame on you, Mark. I thought you were above that.

[Mark Metcalfe]

There is a big difference in the words "would suspend" and making such suspension contingent of the economic situation; and saying that he has already "CHANGED" (past tense) his own tax proposal. You took a contingent, future tense statement and turned it into a past tense statement, to serve your argument. Shame on you, Mark. I thought you were above that.

The difference you cite is in the eye of the [partisan] beholder.

[Bruce Carriker]

The difference you cite is in the eye of the [partisan] beholder.

No, it isn't. Go check out an English language dictionary and see how you mangled what was said to suit your own partisan purpose.

[Mark Metcalfe]

No, it isn't. Go check out an English language dictionary and see how you mangled what was said to suit your own partisan purpose.

Yes it is.
Shall we continue?