February 28, 2006
-
From Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
by Barbara Ehrenreich
copyright 2001“…The Economic Policy Institute recently reviewed dozens of studies of what constitutes a ‘living wage’ and came up with an average figure of $30,000 a year for a family of one adult and two children, which amounts to a wage of $14 an hour. This is not the very minimum such a family could live on; the budget includes health insurance, a telephone, and child care at a licensed center, for example, which are well beyond the reach of millions. But it does not include restaurant meals, video rentals, Internet access, wine and liquor, cigarettes and lottery tickets, or even very much meat. The shocking thing is that the majority of American workers, about 60 percent, earn less than $14 an hour. Many of them get by by teaming up with another wage earner, a spouse or grown child. Some draw on government help in the form of food stamps, housing vouchers, the earned income tax credit, or – for those coming off welfare in relatively generous states – subsidized child care. But others – single mothers for example – have nothing but their own wages to live on, no matter how many mouths there are to feed.”
p. 213
“Forty years ago the hot journalistic topic was the ‘discovery of the poor’ in their inner-city and Appalachian ‘pockets of poverty.’ Today you are more likely to find commentary on their ‘disappearance,’ either in a supposed demographic reality or as a shortcoming of the middle-class imagination.”
“…the particular political moment favors what almost looks like a ‘conspiracy of silence’ on the subject of poverty and the poor. The Democrats are not eager to find flaws in the period of ‘unprecedented prosperity’ they take credit for; the Republicans have lost interest in the poor now that ‘welfare-as-we-know-it’ has ended. Welfare reform is a factor weighing against any close investigation of the conditions of the poor. Both parties heartily endorsed it, and to acknowledge that low-wage work doesn’t lift people out of poverty would be to admit that it may have been, in human terms, a catastrophic mistake. In fact, very little is known about the fate of former welfare recipients because the 1996 welfare reform legislation blithely failed to include any provision for monitoring their postwelfare economic condition. Media accounts persistently bright-side the situation, highlighting the occasional success stories and downplaying the acknowledged increase in hunger….”
“You would have to read a great many newspapers very carefully, cover to cover, to see the signs of distress. You would find, for example, that in 1999 Massachusetts food pantries reported a 72 percent increase in the demand for their services over the previous year, that Texas food banks were ‘scrounging’ for food, despite donations at or above 1998 levels, as were those in Atlanta. You might learn that in San Diego the Catholic Church could no longer, as of January 2000, accept homeless families at its shelter, which happens to be the city’s largest, because it was already operating at twice its normal capacity. You would come across news of a study showing that the percentage of Wisconsin food-stamp families in ‘extreme poverty’ – defined as less than 50 percent of the federal poverty line – has tripled in the last decade to more than 30 percent. You might discover that, nationwide, America’s food banks are experiencing ‘a torrent of need which [they] cannot meet’ and that, according to a survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 67 percent of the adults requesting emergency food aid are people with jobs.”pp. 216-219
“When poor single mothers had the option of remaining out of the labor force on welfare, the middle and upper middle class tended to view them with a certain impatience, if not disgust. The welfare poor were excoriated for their laziness, their persistence in reproducing in unfavorable circumstances, their presumed addictions, and above all for their ‘dependency.’ Here they were, content to live off ‘government handouts’ instead of seeking ‘self-sufficiency,’ like everyone else, through a job. They needed to get their act together, learn how to wind an alarm clock, get out there and get to work. But now that government has largely withdrawn its ‘handouts,’ now that the overwhelming majority of the poor are out there toiling in Wal-Mart or Wendy’s – well, what are we to think of them? Disapproval and condescension no longer apply, so what outlook makes sense?”
“Guilt, you may be thinking warily. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to feel? But guilt doesn’t go anywhere far enough; the appropriate emotion is shame – shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on – when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently – then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The ‘working poor,’ as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else...”pp. 220-221
Comments (52)
Yes... Yes... Yes... I unfortunately know this to be true in the worst way.
Nickel and Dimed is one of my favorites. It should be required reading for every U.S. citizen.
On one hand I'm surprised that 60% operate below a "reasonable" income.,but when looking around,70% wouldn't have shocked me.Hope it's all good for you John.
Peace Scott
John,I wasn't referring to your monetary screwing from the rich.I was hoping that you might have had an emotional lift through the day,and that you were feeling as well as you can physically.However,it did illicit some interesting personal facts from you,and confirms what we already know.They take what they can from the ones already feeling disenfranchised from society,then take from the next ladder up on the economic scale,and then give the high-incomers another few tax breaks.It's a joke.
Even the ones making $30,000 can't be happy,so I would guess we're in the 70% range for people that are unhappy with their economic plight.Amazing that twice as many people are allowing the elite to do as they please.
Peace Scott
Good post as usual...Thanks for much for your comment this am ,most appreciated by me!
the discovery of the poor would be a bigger shock, now, don't you think, with everyone hiding from reality? i guess i should just be grateful i could never have kids to put them through this never ending hell. anybody got a bootstrap i can borrow?
Yeah...I'm trying to pull myself up by my mind, since I don't have a bootstrap either.
But all poor people are just lazy and want hand outs--you know that, right?
And I need to start having babies just as soon as I can so I can get as much welfare as I can.
(First I have to start having a period and sex, though, I guess.)
Thanks for trying to arrange a marriage for me! If only were that easy....
Ha! An arranged marriage with BugGirl!
I imagine the marriage would start off with intense erotic passion--but the romance would soon die out because of BugGirl's relentless radical communist politics!!
Ha!
Oh my....
Geez--I thought relentless radical communist politics was damn sexy!!!
wow, you know I can't read all that. I am a 16 line girl. . .or at least brief paragraphs.
RYC: I am an HR manager for a home improvement warehouse. As much I would love a high end fashion establishment, for the clothes etc...., I would have to deal primarily with dingbats and smug old women in ugly wool suits applying for positions. The home improvement industry brings in such an assortment of life forms. The fun never ends. Today I will meet with @15 various nut jobs, including Miss Tattoo!
I thought relentless radical communist politics was hott as well, Anna!
I unfortunately worked as a case worker for subsidized childcare for many years in the state of illinois. I can tell you that most of the women in the program DID NOT want to work and were ripping the state off for thousands of dollars every single day. There were a few that were despertly trying to make their lives better but unfortunately the majority were lying and stealing and had no intention of working now or ever. But they really liked being able to put their kids in free child care so they could have the day to party and have fun,. I really wish my own words were not true but they are. Since I am a woman and have had to work off and on to give my kids what they needed it really hurts me to post this. Subsidized childcare is a great program in theory but in reality it doesnt work. Myself and several others found blatant abuses of this program and when we reported them we were told to look the other way. Why you ask?? Because the higher ups dont want anyone knowing the program doesnt work because then they would lose their grants and jobs.
Kay
As http://www.phpbbforfree.com/forums/eminemsrevengea-about260.html shows...there really is NO concern for the common weal of the people
Factor in that Amerikkka has more people incarcerated than China, how the hell THEY can criticise anyone about human rights violations is beyond me
From bacaboy's site: "And we're not even talking about Lord Prometheus or Hedgehogman or TruePatriot or any of the host of other brain-dead and heart-dead neocons who are truly beyond any hope of redemption"
Thank you for exposing yourself to be nothing more than just another liberal socialist demagogue. Anyone who disagrees with you is "braindead". So much for the "open mindedness" of liberals. You're only open minded to those who hate Bush.
Oh, and just for the record, your use of "neocon" is incorrect. A neocon is someone who used to be a liberal or was raised in a liberal home, but is now a conservative. At least learn what a word means before you throw it around like it's supposed to be this great insult.
Oh, btw, props to minihorselover. She blows anna's nonsense that I was reading on baca's site out of the water. Maybe that Prometheus guy wasn't so stupid after all.
H'man, I haven't heard an intelligent or original thought out of you yet, on any blog. If you ever have one, I'd love to read it.
You're right, though....I do hate Bush, or at least what he stands for. With a consuming passion. And a "neocon", as I use it and as educated people use it, is a person who is not a classical conservative in the mold of William Buckley, for example, but rather a self-styled conservative in the new ("neo") mold, essentially a fascist with imperial designs. You'll find that many classical conservatives, such as William Lind, deplore many things about Bush and his ilk. Oh, but you'd have to actually READ and THINK to find out some of those things. My bad.
Miniaturehorselover's (Kay's) comment deserves a slightly more nuanced reply, even though hers is a stereotypical argument, because she is sincere and because it's a personal experience of hers and because her comment is at least relevant to my post.
I'd have to know more, of course, about what kind of employment was available to the women you caseworked, Kay, and how you became privy to their internal motivations and so forth. When they partied, did they have miniature horses to party with?
But my main question would be this: Are you using this anecdotal evidence to argue in favor of a substandard wage? Should a woman work for less per hour than it costs her to put her child(ren) in day care? A dollar an hour more? What would be your criterion? Is this the kind of society you think is ideal? Can you think of no alternatives?
You say, Kay, that you "have had to work on and off" to give your kids what they needed. This suggests to me that you have a husband or significant other who is the primary breadwinner, such that you have had the luxury of working only part time and only sporadically. How is that relevant to the plight of a person who has no support system, and has to work full time at substandard wages? What do you really know about their conditions of life? That's precisely why I urge people to read Barbara Ehrenreich's book. She too is a woman of some means in "real life", but she "went undercover" and did the research in order to give herself a more realistic perspective into the plight of the poor.
RYC: The piece that I posted was intentionally made to be abstract, not completly realistic. It wasnt even drawn from a real human being sitting infront of me. It was meant to be statue-like and geometric with a stony quality. Art is very subjective, and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!!
as a former welfare recipient (in childhood and then again as a single mom) and now college grad, I can see this from both sides: the establishment/"business" of welfare operates on certain "assumptions", or better, stereotypes: single moms ('cause they are the only ones eligible for welfare; you can't get it if you have a man/husband in the house) are viewed as a "commodity" with which to barter. these women are shuttled out to high-end malls to be janitors/fast food cooks whatever...in an attempt to "subsidize" their welfare payments and to be eligible for other "benefits". yet, no childcare is offered during the late-nite/early morn hours for these famlies. When I was younger, my father raised my brother and I in an affluent suburb; we received welfare checks, food stamps but no health insurance. for six years in a row we never went to the doctor (not until I was 15yrs old). As a young single mother in college, I was told by the welfare office that my son could receive free childcare as long as I had taken the absent father for child support (which I had already done). Every time I was to go pick up the vouchers, the office was full of young women who were doing the same, the difference being I was running in between classes to pick up the vouchers and they were dressed like they were headed to the clubs: hair dyed and done; nails long, painted and uselesss; and high-heeled shoes that my mother told me only meant one thing......I was using the system, just differently from them: I got my food stamps, childcare vouchers (no cash pymnts) and lived off of student loan/scholarship financial aid rebates....As a college grad, I work like a big dog to pay my taxes, student loans, expenses and CHILDCARE. Now, due to costs, I am forced to leave my kids home alone because my husband and I cannot afford childcare. If he weren't in the picture, I would qualify for some form of assistance (at some person cost). The system is designed to break down the family unit, to minimize the important role that a MAN has in a child's/family's life. This country has a HISTORY of relying on the poor. In my area, the "minutemen" have gained a foothold as they claim to target illegal immigrant construction workers; to them I say: you can't have it both ways; either you want them on welfare, or you want them to work the low-paying construction jobs that most "americans" don't want. What's it gonna be america?
Well i knew my comment would not be popular because I am telling you what no one wants to hear. As I said above I was a CASEWORKER which means I worked very closely with these women. They were required to come see me in person periodically and we had a lot of contact by phone. my name at work was counselour kay because I cared so much about these women and tried so hard to help them. But what I found out was SOME women dont want to be helped. So when they would show up to our sessions drunk while their child is in daycare what do you think they were doing? And when I would call to verify their employment only to be told they had quit coming to work months ago or were fired for being "under the influence" what other conclusion is there?? Or how about the woman who called to tell me she had broken her daughters arm because she was a fucking brat?? (yes the child was taken away) You can idealize the situation all you want. I lived in the reality. And I want to point out that not all of these women worked in low paying jobs. Quite a few made more money then I did. Also we paid for childcare to send women back to school. But for many it was too hard to get their ass out of bed to attend classes. Sorry if my comments are gruff but I am giving you the reality of what I worked in every single day. Again there were SOME women who were trying to better their lives but they were very few and far between. One other thing about this program. One of the stipulations is they cannot be married or live with a boyfriend to get subsidized childcare. How stupid is that? Most of them just lied because I guarantee you the majority with living with men. But what kind of message does that send? You can only get help if you divorce the man who fathered your children?? And why do we assume that only single mothers need help? There are a lot of two imcome families out there struggling also. I know because Im one of them.
Katy can verify that I tried despertly NOT to have to work when my children were young. I didnt work for luxuries I worked to pay utility bills and doctor bills. I have always said that no one will take care of your children like a parent can so I did my best NOT to put my children in daycare. We didnt have fancy vacations and my kids didnt have designer clothes. But they knew their mother loved them and I think I have raised 4 very secure children.
You want a program that works? Pay mothers to stay home and take care of their own children until they reach school age. Give them parenting classes so they know how to be a parent. Many of them had very poor role models so the cycle continues. This would not be perfect either but would work a lot better then the programs out there now.
For DivaJade: Thanks very much for your comments. I offer no rebuttal, because you paint a balanced picture and because I too see things from both sides. When I go to the po' folks clinic in my community (I'm a single middle-aged man living on a small disability pension, so there are almost NO benefits available to me), I see women in there with those fancy fingernails, coifed hair, and cell phones, driving cars that are 1,000 times nicer than mine, and I wonder how they qualify for the subsidized health care or, alternatively, how they afford all those other things.
I was a firefighter for 16 years before becoming disbled - one of America's "heroes", right, at least until it comes time to compensate me? - and I resent the shit out of the way our system works. I don't know how to set up a system where the decent people are rewarded while the scammers aren't, but I look at it sort of like the criminal justice system; I'd rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person convicted of a crime s/he didn't commit.
I will add only two things: (1) What I am talking about here, and what Barbara Ehrenreich is talking about in her book, is NOT the welfare system but our economy, where decent jobs have been outsourced and the remaining jobs pay substandard wages that are inadequate to support a family. And (2) You are fortunate to have a husband who subsidizes your income, or whose income you subsidize.
Again, I appreciate your comments.
For Miniature Horse Lover: Thanks again for your comments. Much of my reply to DivaJade would apply also to you. And it appears that her take on things is similar to yours; our current system conspires to break up families rather than to strengthen them. I could not agree more.
May I ask who Katy is? E-mail me privately if you want. Thanks.
Right, right, and what I neglected to include was the point that, the welfare system "appears" as a more lucrative "occupation" to the recipients than hustling at a low-paying job that offers zero benefits in comparison to those they receive from the government. And, it seems as though WE are in the wrong country, or the wrong era.....
"H'man, I haven't heard an intelligent or original thought out of you yet, on any blog. If you ever have one, I'd love to read it."
I could say the same thing about you, but I won't. I don't wish to sink to your level of pathetic namecalling. I have always defended my views passionately and articulately, and you and your friends here have given me no reason to change my views on life, Christianity, or politics. All you have done is confirm the liberal socialist stereotype for me. Good job.
Perhaps my latest post on Saddam's WMD program would fit your criteria for "intelligent"? As far as originality goes, I've never heard an original idea from any of you liberals; just the same tired socialism mantras. Sorry, but your liberal socialistic ideas have been around for a loooong time, and aren't original to you at all.
Thank you, minihorselover, for your anecdotes of real life. Our welfare system is screwed up to the core, and throwing more money at it is only going to make it worse. Oh yeah, by the way, liberals, it's unConstitutional for the federal government to be giving my money away for any reason. Period. Caring for the poor is the job of the church, not the federal government. But don't let anything like the supreme law of the land get in your way.
You know, H'man, the day is coming when the God whom I serve is going to kick your puny little American Republican god's butt, and perhaps be merciful enough to explain to you, before casting you into outer darkness for eternity, that Jesus was not a wealthy white Republican from the United States of Amerika. And that's pretty much all I have to say about that. Of course I say it in love, with a prayer for your repentance and salvation.
Eccentrique,
Don't you just love Hedgehogman's steady stream of condemnation, bitter partisanship, and name-calling bravado?
Why bother with the communal testing of logical claims with valid premises when you have Hedgehogman's perpetual display of logical fallacies and baseless accusations?
The stupid thing is how they must come up with these so called "average" figures. To get an average, you are supposed to get as much data as you can, (say 100) add all wages up together, then divide by the collected data number (100). So if you get some scum sucking leech bag (maybe a politician) who makes....I dunno $500,000 a year, it puts the "average" up. If they are truly going to calculate the "average person's salary", then they need to leave out all jobs that require degrees or higher education (which reportedly earn you at least $10,000 more) because, let's face it, higher education is just not attainable to many people (unless they can get a grant or come from a rich ass family in the first place or - as I did - are prepared to go *near to* bankrupt and have a loan that is going to take the rest of their lives to pay off)
What_Truth: Let's be careful about what statistics we're talking about. I see nothing in what I quoted from Barbara Ehrenreich about average salaries. What I do see is an average figure of what would constitute a living wage for one adult and two children, taking into account various "average" costs of living. I don't know what the Economic Policy Institute used as its "averages" for housing, food, etc., but it does say that "dozens of studies" were consulted.
I'm sure the estimate is reasonably conservative, and includes places like San Francisco and Boston as well as, say, Frankfort Kentucky.
Your rant on statistics raises an interesting point, though, about the "poverty line". Ehrenreich explains, in another place in her book, that the "poverty line" has been, for many years, calculated as a multiple of the cost of food. Since the cost of food has remained somewhat stagnant while the cost of housing has soared, she argues that (1) the poverty line should be calculated as a multiple of the average cost of housing - say, 3 times the cost of a two-bedroom apartment - rather than as a multiple of the cost of food; and that (2) as a consequence of the antiquated method of calculation, the "poverty line" is artificially lowered, and not reflective of modern reality.
Interesting here too John!Your comment section is always lively when I stop by.
Peace Scott
"You know, H'man, the day is coming when the God whom I serve is going to kick your puny little American Republican god's butt, and perhaps be merciful enough to explain to you, before casting you into outer darkness for eternity, that Jesus was not a wealthy white Republican from the United States of Amerika."
First of all, I'm not a Republican. I'm an independent conservative. I'd vote for a Dem if they were conservative enough. I don't know where you get this idea that I think Jesus only loves Republicans. How quaint.
Secondly, there you go, questioning my salvation again. This is what, the third time at least?? You crack me up, man. You act as though everyone who disagrees with you can't possibly be saved. What a joke. I hope you don't really believe that, because you're going to be REALLY surprised when you get to heaven. I hate to tell you this, but salvation isn't determined by political beliefs.
I'll just assume this is your pitiful form of a counter-argument and that you have nothing intelligent to say in response.
"Don't you just love Hedgehogman's steady stream of condemnation, bitter partisanship, and name-calling bravado?"
Yo, bacaboy, take that beam out of your own eye first. I can only assume you didn't read my last comment, because if you did, you wouldn't have opened your mouth and said something that incredibly stupid. "Partisanship"? "name-calling"? What the frig...?
If you and Eccentrique have an intelligent, legitimate counter-position to what I posted in my last comment, I wonder why you consistently fail to share it?
Hey, I caught up with you on a comment on Baca's site.... Thanks. Let me just say, I stuggle everyday with "good vs. evil", and I also struggle everyday with the bush administration. This administration truely tests my faith in God. The only thing that gets me through is that God says His ways are not my ways and His thoughts are not my thougths. Thus, HE IS THE MAN, and I have to listen to it. And, He keeps me sane. George Bush is a liar. Everyday the people of this country find out more and more lies he tells and we grow more dispondent with the U.S. in general. Don't give up. This is YOUR country. This is my country. I don't care how many elections the democrats loose, or how many lies the others throw at us, just keep your faith. Let me say one thing I've learned in the forty years I've been alive is that GOD sees it all. The righteous will receive their reward and the wicked will perish. We may not see it in our lifetime...but God does, and it will happen. Peace and thanks for your nice comments.
Just as you say you're not a Republican, H'man, I wonder where you got the idea that I'm a "liberal". Never have I said so. I am in fact a radical activist for social justice, just as Jesus was.
And I haven't been questioning your salvation at all. I've been making an observation. The Bible says that "by their fruits ye shall know them." I have within me the Holy Spirit, who imparts to me, among other things, a gift of discernment. As I'm sure you're aware, I have the mind of Christ, and I am commanded to "judge with righteous judgment". If Jesus Himself called certain of His contemporaries who were hypocrites "vipers" and so forth, who am I to do any less? The fact that I have not yet done so in your case is a testimony to my self-restraint.
Now as for your earlier comments:
"Perhaps my latest post on Saddam's WMD program would fit your criteria for "intelligent"?"
No, not in the least. Whether or not Saddam had a nascent WMD program is essentially immaterial except insofar as our administration lied about the extent of the threat. Saddam was no threat to the United States or to much of anyone else. Lots of countries already have nukes. Why are we singling out Iraq, and not attacking all those other countries? WE have more WMD than any other nation in the world. Why do we not, in the interests of avoiding hypocrisy, destroy our own stockpile?
"As far as originality goes, I've never heard an original idea from any of you liberals; just the same tired socialism mantras. Sorry, but your liberal socialistic ideas have been around for a loooong time, and aren't original to you at all."
Again, where did you get the idea that I'm a "liberal"? As for socialism, I never claimed to be original (or socialist, for that matter, although I have a certain leaning toward socialism in some respects). Jesus' early apostles were socialists; they "held all things common". There is nothing in the Bible, or indeed in the Constitution, that negates socialism, or equates Christianity OR democracy with free-market capitalism.
"Thank you, minihorselover, for your anecdotes of real life. Our welfare system is screwed up to the core, and throwing more money at it is only going to make it worse."
MHL's observations were appreciated, though Barbara Ehrenreich, the subject of my post, was not talking about welfare.
"Oh yeah, by the way, liberals, it's unConstitutional for the federal government to be giving my money away for any reason. Period. Caring for the poor is the job of the church, not the federal government. But don't let anything like the supreme law of the land get in your way."
Here is possibly the stupidest of all your comments, H'man. First of all, it's not YOUR money. "You are not your own; you are bought with a price." You are a STEWARD of God's money. That's all. And of course there's the Scripture about "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," where Jesus was referring specifically to tax money. So if your government asks you to proffer some of YOUR money to help the poor, it would be unscriptural of you to refuse to submit.
As for the Constitution, I have to wonder how much you actually know about it. I studied it in law school for 3 years, just as I studied the Bible intensively for more than ten years. Your government gives "your" money away for all KINDS of things, H'man. It's recently been giving hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to defense contractors, the military, and civilian contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel. That, while foolish beyond measure, can find some support in the Constitution, though I wonder if you can tell me where. Your government gives "foreign aid" to many other nations. Do you know where that is mentioned in the Constitution? The income tax, of course, is an amendment to the Constitution, but at the time of its passage many thought that it was unconstitutional.
I could go on and on. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about corporations, or how they should be constituted, or what level of protection they should enjoy from the government? When you're old enough to actually have a career, H'man, I imagine you'll be paying into Social Security and Medicare, and expecting to take advantage of those programs. Where are they mentioned in the Constitution? What about government agencies such as the Food and Drug Adminsitration, the EPA, the FCC, etc., etc.? Where is their Constitutional mandate?
Now we come to the topic of the poor. There's a little thing called the Preamble to the Constitution, and it says, "We the People of the United States, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I suggest that surely somewhere in the words I capitalized can be found a mandate to care at least minimally for the poorer citizens among us.
Since you state, H'man, that caring for the poor is the job of the church, and since you claim to be a Christian, I ask you how much you personally gave to help the poor in the last year. Please be specific. Remember that God keeps careful records of such things.
You seem to forget, H'man "boy", that you are on my turf; you are in my home here on my blog. Thus you will play by my rules here. You will be respectful at all times, to me and to my other guests, and you will refrain from commenting unless you can avoid stereotyping and address serious issues with intelligence and Christian compassion. Should you fail to do so, you will be asked politely to leave my "home" and never return. Should you fail to do THAT, you will be summarily cast into outer darkness by me personally. And you will recall that Jesus Himself told me, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
hey ecc., do you have aol im?
oh, and that was a fabulous comment above!
Eccentrique,
I've only blocked two people from my site--their vicious, baseless personal attacks is primarily what did it. Interestingly, they were both religious elites with no tolerance for the teachings of Jesus. I have no obligation to permit such filth on my message board, especially as these folks had no interest in dialogue--which is why they just right-flamed and derailed debate at all costs with their ad-hominems, non-sequiturs, and other non-sensical tactics.
I think all U.S. churches need to be grounded from listening to hate radio and hate tv--too many have gotten the idea that those media illustrate legitimate "debate" styles.
I chat with xangans on a regular basis, and was wondering if you had access to chat as well. I have a yahoo account that you can link to on my blog.
Well Eccentrique if you wanted to get to Villacabomba you could either fly their or take a boat. Here is a great website to find cheap airline tickets. http://www.cheapflights.com I was able to find a ticket round trip to Europe for 250.00. When I saw the bargain prices they listed I couldnt believe how cheap they were.
"Just as you say you're not a Republican, H'man, I wonder where you got the idea that I'm a "liberal"."
Socialism = Liberalism taken to the extreme. You are an admitted socialist, therefore, you are an extreme liberal.
"No, not in the least. Whether or not Saddam had a nascent WMD program is essentially immaterial except insofar as our administration lied about the extent of the threat. Saddam was no threat to the United States or to much of anyone else."
Rofl! So "Bush lied" is your mantra, nevermind the fact that he's been proven RIGHT or anything... holy cow. Talk about willfully ignorant.
"Lots of countries already have nukes. Why are we singling out Iraq, and not attacking all those other countries?"
First, Saddam was a known anti-US loony. Second, we're going to get to those other anti-US loonies, don't worry. Kim Jong-"mentally" Il and what's-his-face in Iran are next.
"So if your government asks you to proffer some of YOUR money to help the poor, it would be unscriptural of you to refuse to submit."
Mandating that I give my money to practically worthless welfare programs or be thrown in jail is hardly "asking".
"Your government gives "your" money away for all KINDS of things, H'man. It's recently been giving hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to defense contractors, the military, and civilian contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel."
Yup. Isn't it great how that falls under "provide for the common defense"?
"Your government gives "foreign aid" to many other nations. Do you know where that is mentioned in the Constitution?"
It isn't, and I think it's insane. Completely unConstitutional.
"You are a STEWARD of God's money. That's all. And of course there's the Scripture about "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's,"
Yes, but that hardly gives the government the right to break the law by using my money for unConstitutional purposes. I'm not against taxes; I'm against what they are DOING with my taxes!
"When you're old enough to actually have a career, H'man,"
Way to get in your digs. How mature. You know nothing about me, who I work for, or what I do.
"I imagine you'll be paying into Social Security and Medicare, and expecting to take advantage of those programs. Where are they mentioned in the Constitution?"
They aren't, and I'm wholly against them. They are perfect examples of the government using MY money for unConstitutional purposes.
"What about government agencies such as the Food and Drug Adminsitration, the EPA, the FCC, etc., etc.? Where is their Constitutional mandate?"
I believe all such agencies to be an overreaching of federal power. Our government has ballooned in size in the past 200 some years. It's out of control, and needs to be stopped.
"I suggest that surely somewhere in the words I capitalized can be found a mandate to care at least minimally for the poorer citizens among us."
The mandate comes from Scripture, NOT the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government has NO LEGAL RIGHT to take MY tax dollars and give them away to ANYONE, unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution. I would think you'd know this basic fact, if you're truly a student of the law.
"Since you state, H'man, that caring for the poor is the job of the church, and since you claim to be a Christian, I ask you how much you personally gave to help the poor in the last year. Please be specific."
Excuse me, but that is a very personal question. That is between me and God, and is nobody else's business. If I were to go around shouting what I did for the poor, I'd be no better than the Pharisees. Nice attempt to trap me, though.
"You seem to forget, H'man "boy", that you are on my turf; you are in my home here on my blog. Thus you will play by my rules here. You will be respectful at all times, to me and to my other guests,"
Thanks, I hope anna_lanche and her profane mouth got that memo...
"you will refrain from commenting unless you can avoid stereotyping and address serious issues with intelligence and Christian compassion."
Your definition of intelligence seems skewed, and why do I get the feeling "Christian compassion" means "agreeing with socialism"? The only reason you don't think what I'm saying is intelligent is because you disagree.
"Should you fail to do so, you will be asked politely to leave my "home" and never return. Should you fail to do THAT, you will be summarily cast into outer darkness by me personally. And you will recall that Jesus Himself told me, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Ok, that was just weird... it sounds like you think you have the power to condemn me to hell or something.
"I've only blocked two people from my site--their vicious, baseless personal attacks is primarily what did it."
I'm wondering why anna_lanche and her foul mouth wasn't one of them... could it be because you agree with her, and not with me? See, in bacaboy's world, it's perfectly acceptable for liberals to call the president and conservatives "s***bags" and "f***tards", but by golly, no conservative can dare call anyone an "idiot"(as I did) for misrepresenting their views.
"I have no obligation to permit such filth on my message board, especially as these folks had no interest in dialogue"
But you more than gladly permit profanity, shrill name-calling, and crude sexual slang, as long as it agrees with your political views.
We have a word for people like you where I come from: Hypocrite.
"I think all U.S. churches need to be grounded from listening to hate radio and hate tv"
Of course, this is baca's idea of clever code words for "anything conservative".
Thanks for correcting my spelling. ha!ha!ha! I guess the post would make more sense if I spelled the word right! Peace!
u've gone and changed everything about yourself...race, gender, nationality. hmmm. i like it.
Anna_Lanche may be profane, H'man, but she has a wonderful heart. She is motivated by compassion and a frustrated idealism. You, on the other hand, are motivated by a shallow and misplaced patriotism, selfishness, and greed. Anna's world view is coherent; yours is not.
Make of that what you will. God will judge. You were slightly more respectful with this comment, but it's obvious that there'll be no meeting of the minds between us, and further dialogue is a waste of your precious time. Thanks for coming. Please don't let the door hit you in the buttocks on the way out.
RYC: I think pink gives the poem an advantage: the pink belies the true nature of the poem itself, don't you think? With such a "foo-foo" color, it kind of sneaks up on ya...And I think we all know what would've happened if the Million Man March-ers had been armed: there would've been a large-scale public gassing and there would've been a Million *dead* Men.
Funny you should mention Cuba and the base.I can't figure out why the U.S. are still allowed there.I almost blogged this last week as a Canadian newspaper sent a reporter down to investigate.I'll see if I can find it.You might be surpr...nah,nothing surprises anymore,does it!?
btw; I left a comment re your comment at raboobie's.
Peace Scott
Okay John,I posted the article.You may ,or may not have heard of what's going on down there.I'll be interested to hear your thoughts,if you get a chance to read it.
Peace Scott
OMIGOD! JOHN MADE A BOOBOO! even if it was just a typo! aha! you said you are "disbled" and i don't think that's what you meant.......
love ya, m.
Hahaha, Marla. How long did it take you to find that?
I said "Adminsitration" in one of my replies to H'man, too. It's mighty embarrassing. But shti happens, you know?
RYC: I'm always facetious! However, we will disagree on this. I DO believe that pro sports IS, in fact, the new slavery. I mean, these althletes play through horrific injuries, and yes, they are paid INSANE amounts of money. But look at the case of Jerome Bettis: he is so injured it takes him 5-6 days to recover from a game before he can play in the next, these players have no health insurance or retirement. But here in DC, this player played through 4 different coaches in about 5-6 years and CARRIED the team until Gibbs' return last season. There HAS to be some professional courtesy, yet, this organization showed NONE. LaVar Arrington was embarrassed in the press, disrespected in meetings, treated like CHATTEL. And then, towards the end of the season, he was a key play-maker that assisted in the 'Skins getting into the playoffs. But the damage was done, and when it came time to get under the salary cap, he decided it was better to give the 4million and HOPE he can get signed elsewhere (w/a new baby, new wife, and a knee under rehabilitation it might be a challenge). This doesn't even touch his "good-guy" image in this area: always giving in the community, used his own money to fund shopping trips for Katrina evacuees in WDC; he made the Washington Redskins look good. I think this had been a "battle" between the team owner (who wanted to keep him) and the coach (who wanted him out fom the start).
ryc;Hey John;ryc; “odd” to be sure, I was also saddened to see millions of dollars being poured into G.B.,which obviously means that there is no intention of leaving. The fact that they sent one of their top public relations people tells me they are spinning yet another story. Which probably means those feed tubes up the prisoners noses aren’t the only things being stuck in them.
It looks like, due to the world screaming at him, Bush had the worst areas leveled. I would imagine that EVERYTHING has been pushed underground.
I didn’t feel any better reading this report,I just felt I had more knowledge of it’s history,etc.
btw; I just realized it is that time of the week again.You know,Tuesday,your weekly posting day.
Peace Scott
thanks for the support.
X really did only need for certain things and i don't like the idea of being in a friendship that feels like i should be getting paid for my services. sorry you wasted your money on therapy! i've never done gestalt before, it's not my orientation anyway. there's nothing more frustrating when you're trying to connect with someone and they refuse to budge an inch. i had to shop around before i finally got to my current therapist, and let me tell you, i met some weirdos!
anna lanche cracks me up...
Wow, you have done it again. You get the dialogue going don't you?
ryc: you should write that up anyway! It sounded cool as hell.
Thank You for the birthday wishes! WOW! That made my day! And, yes...my oldest goes to Bowling Green State University. She wants to teach high school. Her emphasis is on Social Sciences. She could teach high school history, social studies, government, economics, geography, etc... However, she has been involved in a program at BGSU that promotes inner city/rural education. This program focuses on teaching children that have other "obstacles" to overcome in education. Their motto is "everyone is teachable...you just have to figure out, "how". I love it and so does she. However, she wants to teach inner city New York or Washington, D.C. and truthfully...I'm scared about that. I admire her courage but I don't want her to end up hurt or worse... (And, it cracks me up when dubya dumbass talks about how we need to increase our math and science majors like that's going to increase jobs in this country. My kid just wants everyone to learn the basics. What a world of difference. Dumbass doesn't even know the obstacles these kids in major cities face.)
RYC on turning 40.........Honestly, this time last year I was extremely excited that my life was gonna somehow "change" when I turned 40! Well, it hasn't. In reality, I was a lot better off at 30 than I am at 40. (financially speaking.) Somewhere between 30 and 40 I produced 2 more children, which I didn't plan for, but I am VERY HAPPY they were added into the picture. However, we all know what stress children can add to anything, i.e. marriages, finances, free-time, etc... So, what I'm saying is I thought I would be somewhere different at 40. Am I disappointed? No. Am I truely happy? No. Do I have a lot to work with? YES. Life to me is a learning experience. And, one thing I've come to realize in the past few weeks is... forty is just a number. Peace.
Comments are closed.