Conservatives and Poverty, or What Would Jesus Really Do?

[Stargleamer]

After reading lately how states are financially strapped for funds and are cutting back on health care for the poor, and after reading somewhere (can someone provide a link for me?) of an increase of the number of families in poverty in this "booming" economy, both results of Republican efforts to defund governments on the local, state and Federal level, I began to think what do conservatives think of poverty and the poor in general? My own opinion is their biases pre-empt them from giving the matter much thought. Do you think think they think the poor are worthless, beneath thinking about? Do they ever, I mean ever, talk about poverty at length? Do they blame the poor? Some I suspect are suspicious or hate the poor. Some maybe keep fooling themselves into believing that what helps the rich (which many conservatives are) helps everyone, and if it doesn't, well the poor are to blame for not "lifting themselves up by their own bootstraps." It's not really though, that any individual can make it in this society, it's just that ALL of us can't, we're too diverse and American capitalism doesn't account or give room for our diverse talents.

Conservatives often extoll their faith, e.g., the one-man wrecking crew who is called President Bush. Yet, did Jesus make any exceptions(when asked "Lord, when have we seen you hungry?"), when he replied, "As long as you provide for the least of these, you provide for me"? He never limited "the least" to only those "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps". Also did Jesus ever say, "It's OK to take further efforts that will result in deepening my starvation"?

[readmylips]

1. jesus is a joke to the repigs...

religion is politics.

[cosmicdot]

2. Mr. "never volunteered for a thing in his life" * - urges his rich friends

... oh, maybe not them ... they're skiing in Vale and St. Moritz ... to 'volunteer' and help those they worsen the lives of ...

* well, I did do a photo-op in the summer of 2001 at a Habitat for Humanity site ... 30 minutes total time, 20 of which was spent with medic for hammering his finger

Bush Urges Americans to Help the Needy

December 20, 2003 10:12 AM EST


WASHINGTON - President Bush urged Americans to seek out ways to help the needy during the holiday season, and he took credit for a rise in volunteerism nationwide.

"This holiday season, I ask every American to look for a challenge in your own community, and step forward to lend a hand," Bush said in his weekly radio address Saturday.


http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=6&aid=D7VI6DKG0_story

[arcane1]

3. "took credit for a rise in volunteerism"

:wtf:

*head explodes*

hey Bush, you stupid, simian, girly-boy, why the FUCK DO YOU THINK there is a rise in volunteerism????

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. These attitudes come from two sources

1) The truly clueless rich: They don't know and don't particularly care what real life is for the masses.

2) Those who worked their way out of poverty through single-minded pursuit of wealth above all other values: They are basically ashamed of their backgrounds and compensate for it by declaring that all the poor people who didn't make it are "lazy" and "worthless." While it is true that some poor people live in self-defeating ways, others work like dogs all their lives and never get anywhere, but that fact does nothing to stroke the striver's ego.

[Kerridwyn]

5. Blaming the poor

Yup. Most of the conservatives I have discussed this with really do blame the poor for being poor. They think if they worked harder, weren't lazy, and went to college, they too could live the American Dream.

No amount of reasoning can convince them that this is not how the real world works.

[Lisa]

9. isn't there a Dickens character based on 2)?

I think it's Mr. Gradgrind, from "Hard Times". He goes on and on about being a self-made man, and is contemptuous of anyone who can't do the same thing. (Turns out he has a little secret in his past though ...)

Don't forget 3), the clueless non-rich who think that if they behave like they're wealthy people (e.g. voting for Bush's tax cuts) they will automatically become part of that select group.

[demright]

6. Jesus on Poverty

When a woman came and annointed Jesus's feet with a very expensive mixture his followers complained. They complained that they could have sold the mixture and used it to feed the poor. Jesus answered the poor will always be with you. I will be with you only a little while. Was he making a comment about the poor? Was he saying they were unimportant. Who were the poor in Jesus's time? The poor could be made up of widows and their children, orphans, the infirm that were unable to work, those with illnesses unable to work and those who were poor because of poor choices,refusal to work (IE slackers), and even perhaps loss through gambling. Levitical law was pretty clear on giving. Hebrews were taught to give the first 10 percent to the priests. This was for the support of the priests and their families. They were taught to give seasonal offering to God for sacrifice, they were taught to help widows,orphans and the infirm. But, they were not taught to help those who could help themselves. We see in our own country abuse of tax funds allocated for the poor. Many times it does not get to those that need it. Giving and helping is more effective and efficient if it is given directly from the giver to the given. This type of giving requires more from us. It requires our time and effort. We have been depending on government too long to do the job we should and could be doing. When Jesus spoke about the least of these he was speaking to the Pharisees. They were religious phonies. They did not see the proverty in their community. They walked by. We as a nation have become the same if we depend on government to do what we should and could be doing and doing it better. If Jesus had seen a divorced woman suffering with poverty because of a deadbeat dad I know he would have looked the guy up a told him to support the children. America has been and continues to give through the government to the poor in this country and elsewhere. I say it's time we take back the task. isn't that what democrates use to stand for? Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?

[Stargleamer]

8. Who are the poor in this country?

My guess is the vast majority of the poor in this country (a huge percentage of which are kids) are not slackers, but those who have been continuously unable to find work, or have been unable to find the kind of work to lift them out of poverty, despite their repeated efforts to do so. Some may have found the going rough due to alcohol or drug addiction (Are addicts no longer to be considered to be worthy of help from Christian conservatives?). Whereas it may sound good to say that we should be providing for the poor rather than the government, in reality, each of us for the most part do not have what the poor really need--jobs at a decent wage. Nor do Christian charities. The wealthy among us, say, for example, George W. Bush, earn enough to provide some jobs if they were willing to part with some of their millions, but I don't see George W. Bush or any prominent conservative going to where people are selling their bodies on the street in order to survive and offering those people jobs. To say it's each individual's responsibility to get a job is one thing, but when individuals do try repeatedly to find work and come up empty-handed, whose responsibility is it then? What would Jesus do then?

Conservatives may give some of their to the poor, although the facts show that most of the wealthiest of Americans don't give as much, percentage-wise, as their more poorer sisters and brothers. The poor need decent jobs that pay decent wages, not handouts, and direct giving, although good, isn't sufficient. FDR knew this, hence the Civilian Conservation Corps, which offered many of those desperately looking for work jobs. And you may quote JFK, in your last line, but JFK also established an agency to provide jobs for people, so that they could do something for the country--the Peace Corps.

Although you may quote Leviticus, it is in the New Testament that we learn that "God is Love" and there is just no way that loving the poor means defunding governments so that health-care to the poor and their kids gets threatened, when Christian charity is no where close to being able to pick up the slack.

[Goldenboy]

16. much charitable giving in this country goes to S.O.B.

which is shorthand for Symphonies, Opera and Ballet...in other words, the performing arts and other activities that are patronized heavily by people with higher net worths. I'd think another large chunk goes to colleges and universities through alumni donations.

[lapauvre]

24. Who ARE the poor?

I live among "the poor." I am not Mother Theresa. I am one of them.

And there are many "poor" for many reasons.

Some are simply victims of jobs being sent overseas. Some are elderly. Many, many are ill, physically or mentally.

Many, many are children.

This week I had one success, only one, in many years of fighting for even human decency to be given to the mentally ill. I have no official capacity, but was once, when I was younger, experienced with the law.

I have seen disabled people, deaf, mute, diabetics, epileptics, schizophrenics, chronic depressives, so abused by our system as to make me not enraged, but outraged.

I cannot tell the whole story of my recent small contribution to putting my mouth and body where my heart is, but I promise you, I lucked out. I am too old and too weak to fight the endless battle anymore, but I still have a mouth, a telephone, a computer, a brain, and a will for justice.

I could not do it, but I found the person who could. And I can assure you that NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) does absolutely nothing--NOTHING--to help the mentally ill.

I called them three times for this situation asking for help for my neighbor. They told me they didn't do that, they just educated people about mental illness.

There is an organization here that took complete charge, solved all the problems, protected a 79 year old schizophrenic while her 43 year old son spent time in jail. Why? Because the police took him to the local mental hospital and they "didn't have a bed." They had to take him someplace, they said. But, whoa, they didn't bother to let him see a doctor or get his medications. He was without medication for six weeks. He is getting it now.

Back during the Reagan campaign, when they introduced the whoopee concept of running a country like a business, I wondered how do you fire a citizen. Well, now I know. You build more jails. You build more jails to put in the beggars, the mentally ill, the homeless, and, if that doesn't work, you cut off the funding for medical services and let them die.

I ask the same question as the title of Michael Moore's latest book:
"Dude, Where's MY Country?"

I do not know one single poor person who is able-bodied and/or able minded who is not seeking a job, any job. Raking my yard. Moving a piece of furniture. The car washes. Convenience stores. God forbid, even Walmart. I do not know a single poor person who enjoys the prospect of starving or welfare. Approximately the same thing.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

13. Privat charity

Actually, private charity isn`t anything than a complete disaster, I would claim that chariy is just as large a failure in helping the poor, as communism was in creating economic growth. The only places in the world where poverty is virtually non existant are the nordic welfare states. Even if the americans are the best givers in the world, the US is still one of the rich countries that are worst hit by poverty and have the largest prison population ratio in the western world.

The society of ancient Judea was a society completely different from our. Unemployment is a phenomenon that in a large part belong to the market economy. In ancient societies, most people were farmers, and they needed any available hand.

[Landlord]

17. Truth

Demright is right. Very well said Demright.

[Landlord]

19. Correct

Very well said Demright and how true.

[shortshorts]

7. Old Testament Comparison

I agree with you completely.
Telling yourself that not helping others less fortunate is good for them and you is just self-justifying, self-delusional kaka. How convenient that the best thing you can do for them is tell people to buck up and look for a job.

Anyway, here's a relevant Biblical anecdote to try out on our Christian Conservatives.

There's the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh. Just in case anyone reading this is not religious, I'll recap the story:

Pharaoh has a dream about seven fat, healthy cows being swallowed and eaten by seven skinny cows. The next night, he has a dream that seven big bundles of wheat being eaten up/destroyed by seven skinny ones. When Joseph is called upon to explain the meaning of these dreams, he tells Pharaoh that this is a message from God: there will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. Because he has been forewarned, he can now act accordingly by stockpiling and storing for these seven lean years.

My reasonable interpretation of this is that the leader has a responsibility to at least minimally ensure that his people have enough to eat and do not die during times of hardship. Our economy is subject to economic booms, recessions and all out disasters, and thus, it is reasonable for governments to exercise some prudence and set a store aside (particularly funds for unemployment benefits, healthcare, Head Start programs) for the inevitable hard times.
Instead, the American people have the leaders raiding the goody cupboard to feed themselves and their friends while the rest of the country starves.

This boggles my mind.

[dave46]

10. And yet

the poor in this country are incredibly rich compared to most of the world. There is a lot more suffering overseas than there is here. While I do feel for the poor people in this country, their needs are usually met. I really think that those who are actually starving or lack even water should be helped first.

[Enjolras]

11. Compared with the rest of the world .....

the poor in this country pay incredibly high prices for rent, health care, transportation (like to and from work), clothing, food etc. Do not believe that because some American makes 20 times what the average Chinese person makes he or she lives 20 times better. In a backward, 3rd world country, it's actually possible to live on $40 a month. Along with having one of the world's highest standards of living comes having one of the world's highest costs of living. It's all relative, no?

[dave46]

12. Yes but that's if

you have a job. Many countries don't even have an economy. People actually starve to death. Just look at Africa. I can honestly say that their poor people are in greater need of help than ours. Where as nearly all the people in the US living under the poverty line still have a tv or even a car, look at the Chinese living under their poverty line and you'll see a difference. The price of living does rise here, but not enough to off-balance the extremely great wages. Why do you think Mexicans move here when it is much cheaper to live in Mexico? Because the gains outweigh the price increase.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

14. You see it wrong

Absolute wealth doesn`t create happiness, relative wealth do. As long as you don`t starve, a person who is among the least poor in a poor country is propably much more happy that a person who lives in a rich country, but have less than everyone else around him.

[shortshorts]

15. Yes...

But I think you are assuming that there is a choice to be made. You choose to help people who have been born into a vicious cycle of poverty and malnutrition overseas as opposed to people who have been born into a vicious cycle of poverty and malnutrition at home - as another poster pointed out, poverty is relative. Why do we have to prefer one over the other? If America truly is going to be seen as the "shining city on a hill", generosity and compassion are attributes that must be uniformly and consistently applied, to the poorest nations, to the poorest among our own.

[dave46]

18. America will

never be seen as the shining city on the hill unless we go out to those other countries and help them. And poverty isn't relative. American's definition of poverty means having plenty of food, water, shelter, even a tv or a car. And money surly does not buy happiness, but the basic necessities are needed in order to be happy. Plus there is the joy of economic freedom, knowing that your basic needs are met so that you can enjoy your interests in life instead of working like a dog all of your life just to keep alive. I believe we should help those in this coutnry as well, but first feed the starving overseas instead of building a house for joe schmo over here. It's more humane.

[LOL]

20. I tend to agree

that we should be helping others, however that's not what our foreign policy is about.

If we are such great humanitarians then please explain to me why our priority should be to spend more per month to better the 20 some million Iraqi's lives then we are committing per year to help the 80 or 90 million effected by AIDS!

We may define the poverty level in terms that define a person to be in a much better situation than those suffering from poverty in much of the rest of the world, but peoples lives in many many cases are much much below that level.

Not many electrical outlets installed under bridges to watch their non-existant tv's...but then, hey, we feed the homeless and needy around Christmas time...ain't we bitchen?

Define poverty any fucking way you want but there are plenty in this country without adequate things as defined...no, wait a minute...it's their fault...nevermind.

[WoodrowFan]

21. I like this site's take...

Introduction



In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself. And if you fail to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to Hell.



The premise of this essay is that you can't be a true Christian if the focus of your life is thwarting others and the society itself from fully implementing such a fundamental teaching of Christianity as Matthew 25:31-46.



It's fine to oppose government programs to help the Matthew 25 "least of these," but then you must propose Equivalent Alternative Solutions. Equivalent Alternative Solutions are ones which:



help at least the same number of those people who legitimately need help
provide at least the same amount of effective assistance to those people
get the help to them at least as quickly
are at least as certain to accomplish these goals


Equivalent Alternative Solutions can certainly be completely non-governmental, as long as they meet the four criteria directly above.



Right-wing Christians are defined by both their opposition to the plans of others to help the "least of these," and their failure to offer any Equivalent Alternative Solutions.



Their behavior puts right-wing pseudo-Christians into the category of the cursed goats whom Jesus describes in Matthew 25 and condemns to Hell.


http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/

[dave46]

22. So I'm guessing

a Christian shouldn't act like Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson? But that is pretty obvious. It's talk the talk AND walk the walk, some people just do not understand that (like the two aformentioned names).

[Stargleamer]

23. an informative, vigorously argued site that

any conservative with conscience--or anyone with a conscience--would do well to look at.

[JesusNoRepublican]

25. Check out NEW http://www.JesusNoRepublican.Org.

Check out NEW http://www.JesusNoRepublican.Org
and the OLD http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org .