We need changes in some of our icons to reflect our changing attitudes.
Lady of Liberty2)Change from:"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your
teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my
lamp beside the golden door!"To:Give me your elite, your
wealthiest, your brightest, the rest of you: Go to the nearest eugenics clinic
for further directions.
@FDRfan, I am confused.Are you a fan of FDR? Because didn't FDR
order the illegal detention of Japanese Americans and confiscation of their
property? Wouldn't that be counter to what you are believing in?I
would agree that we have an elitist problem here in America, however, it is not,
nor should it be, the governments problem to take care of anyone. Freedom has a
price, and that price is self sufficiency. With freedom, also comes
personal responsibility. That means that you take care of yourself first, your
family second, your friends, third, your community fourth, and your country
fifth and last.In all of that, Charity is paramount, and that comes
in the form of friends, then community. After you have taken care of yourself
and your family, then you must do what you can to help friends and community.
If we decide that country comes first, in that the government has
the responsibility first to take care of everyone, we lose our freedoms as we
become slaves to our government for this perverted form of charity.The US is the most charitable country in the world. Let's keep it that way.
Good point FDRfan. That wonderful philosophy at the base of the Statue of
Liberty doesn't seem to have much relevance anymore to the political rhetoric of
the day, including poverty, mental health, immigration, prison and tax policies.
Empthy, it has been said, is the next highest law to charity - the
pure love of Christ. Unfortunately, we have little of either. Too often
caring, sharing and burden bearing (or the lack thereof) are both
institutionalized and legislated.
The lawmakers better be careful, for one day they may be homeless!
They should have also mentioned public urination laws, where the indigent and
homeless can make it to the sex offender list because they have no private place
Re: "Criminalizing Poverty"C'mon!There is no
such thing as criminal poverty. And everyone at DN knows it. Yet we see a
headline proclaiming this socialist "community organizing" blather as
if there were actually some substance to it.This is so typically
indicative of liberal disdain and disrespect for poor Americans, the writer
should be ashamed. To suggest that the poor do not have the capability of
conforming their conduct to the requirements of the law is to establish them on
some rung of the ladder below humanity. It demeans both them and our Nation of
Laws.If writers want to advocate increased benefits for the poor --
do so. But do it honestly, objectively, decently.Articles like this
one simply prove the socialist bias of the "mainstream" media.
Everybody, and I mean everybody, should be very careful of whom fingers get
pointed. For one day in the blink of an eye or a beat of a heart, you could be
homeless, literally. No family to lean on, nor church, nor community. They
only thing you will have to rely on is your self sufficiency. A novel idea
lawmakers don't grasp. Where will the lawmakers and the greedy go to get fed
and sheltered? From those who have and are living on the streets, and know how
to survive. Lawmakers and the greedy are living, the rest of us are surviving.
Survivors will survive, the living will perish.
Agree with part of this article, but not all of it. I do think that we should
help the poor, but I do believe in drug testing if you are getting government
help. Hopefully, it would discourage drug dependency. I know that many drug
addicts use their welfare checks to get money.
What a terrible and misleading headline.
So many of the homeless and drug addicted are veterans. We send our sons and
daughters to enforce our foreign policy and so many come home physically and/or
emotionally destroyed. And then we criminalize those whom we have neglected. Is
it cheaper to house them in jails then to provide assistance? So many raise the
"personal responsibility" banner but refuse to be responsible for
those who serve the policies they support.
procuradorfiscal,Did you read the artcle?"Since
2006, there's been a 7 percent increase in laws prohibiting camping out in
public places" and "a 6 percent increase in laws prohibiting begging
and a 5 percent increase in laws prohibiting aggressive panhandling"You said, "There is no such thing" and I say, yup... well at
least the rest of us see the Elephant in the room.-------Begging for money isn't protected speech under the first amendment? That's a
problem by itself.Is there a way out? Yes. Is enough of the right
form of assistance readily available and widely known? No.There are
clear problems with this issue, however illegalizing things in this regard is a
counter-intuitive approach. Not only does it neglect any attempt to do something
productive about this issue, it belongs in a category of human treatment that I
will never support. There are those today who feel that people of 'filth' (as
they view it anyway) don't belong around everyone else. I can understand the
mentality in one very slim way- sometimes peace requires separation. But with
homelessness? No. With unjustified force, mistreatment, no aid? Such things are
simply wrong, evil, immoral, and illogical.
This country has gone through such a change in the last few years, many of us no
longer even recognize it.What has happened to it is sick and wrong. It's
every rich man for himself.
While I make in the six figures, I remember reading this book by Barbara years
ago, and I am intelligent enough to understand and acknowledge that the poor
now-days are getting a very raw deal. As Isaiah prophesied, the rich "do
grind upon the face of the poor," especially after the financial collapse
(which ironically the poor had very little say in, and rich in fact instigated).
I would recommend this book to any who are so easily duped by trite talking
points so fashionable in today's rhetoric and diatribe. "Nickeled and
Dimed" is an insightful look into just how unjust our economy is, and how
difficult the burdens of poor are. No wonder the scriptures also warn of quickly
approaching day when only the "poor of my people will trust in Zion,"
Zion being the ultimate "socialistic, liberal" program ever devised to
care for the poor. It will be interesting to see these prophecies fulfilled, in
the face of so rampant and strong countervailing opinion of our day. I do feel
to plead the cause of the poor -- ironically, those most opposed are often those
only a pay check away from the streets themselves (clueless).
I am saddened to see class warfare reflected in these comments. The political
climate in our great country is fostering this class resentment. The rioters in
England reveal the disdain young Brits have for the propertied and business
class. They are the product of Socialism, and are nothing more than spoiled,
cradle-to-grave-entitlement-addicted hoodlums wanting their fair share of other
to:Linus | 1:23 p.mpersonally I'm waiting for the LDS church leaders
to ask the members to live the law of consecration(sp)
Hillary Clinton, in true liberal fashion, proposed that what America needs is a
federal Department of Poverty. That, she claims, will end poverty in our
nation. Um...wasnt the creation of the federal Department of Education going to
end our nations education ills? When will we realize that problems
(like the two above) are best solved at the local level, where the most impact
is felt? Theyre best solved by the individuals/families/groups that have the
most skin in the game. Principles of economics teach us that money
is best spent by him/her whose labor is traded to earn it. He/she is the one
who cares most that that money is spent on the best/highest use. Our bloated, off-track federal government is headed for a crash, which, I
hope, will cause us all to re-evaluate our current system, and to start anew.
I have never in my life, nor will I ever, pass a street beggar without giving
money.There but for the grace of God go I.
Ineresting that ACLU claims it wrong for the poor to sit in jail while the rich
write a check and get out. Their first reaction is to want to sue. How about
they spend that money spent on lawers and instead pay to bail for the poor.
While we are at it we need to change our preamble to the constitution to reflect
a recent factor point:Preamble to ConstitutionChange from: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.TO:We the Wealthy of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect government that protects Laissez Faire and Caveat Emptor
freedoms, and provide for our defense, and the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, and protect our property from the masses, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It should be illegal to camp in public places that are not designated
campgrounds. It UNSANITARY.It should be illegal to loiter in front
of a business or residence. What about the property/business owners rights?Of course aggressive panhandling should be illegal. What about my right
to walk down the street without being accosted?Of course we should
screen welfare applicants to make sure that they're not playing the system or
using the money to buy drugs. That takes resources away from people who really
need and deserve our help. There are numerous private and government groups that
are working hard to help the homeless, but many homeless people don't want help.
They'd rather beg and do drugs or drink than take responsiblity for
themselves.It's not illegal to be poor.
But whom have we embraced, rather than the poor?"Behold, this
was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of
idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of
the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49
@FDRfanInstead of coming up with catchy new slogans to run your
fellow countrymen into the ground, why don't you propose a solution? I thought
your other 'great' Democratic President, LBJ, declared war on poverty. Why
hasn't it worked? Are we not socialist enough? Help me understand why people
come here from the poor Asian countries with nothing and end up doing so well.
Don't buy into the politician-generated hype of class warfare. United we stand,
divided we fall.
TheRealBigDaddy@11:46am,You said that America is the most charitable
country in the world. That is simply not true. As a percentage of Gross National
Income, the US's governmental development assistance ranks 20th, behind
virtually all of Europe and Scandinavia. As measured by % of income donated to
charities by individual citizens, we're ranked #8.Linus@1:23pm,How is it that creating policies that hurt the poor is okay, but when
the poor or their advocates complain about it, only THEN is it called
"class warfare"?While greed and unkindness have always
existed, it seems that hearts have truly waxed cold in the last several
years.The religious scriptures I believe in make two things very
clear:1) one of the clearest signs of a corrupt society is a
widening gap between rich and poor,and 2) We're all
beggars, and it's morally wrong to withhold from the poor because we think their
poverty is self-inflicted. "It is unworthy of us as Christians to think
that those who suffer deserve their suffering."So many of the
poor have serious mental health issues and other challenges we can never know;
wo unto us if we judge them harshly.
""If you're lying on a sidewalk, whether you're homeless or a
millionaire, you're in violation of the ordinance," said Joseph Patner, a
city attorney who represented St. Petersburg, Fla, in 2099 when six homeless
people filed a lawsuit against the city."This attorney's
statement is both heartless and mindless. How many millionaires does he see
lying around on the sidewalk? That's like defending segregation by saying
"This policy isn't discriminatory. Any person, black or white, who ranks
lower than 20 on the van Luschen skin-pigmentation scale is allowed to eat at
this restaurant."This is the 21st-century version of "Let
them eat cake."
The U.S. is NOT the most charitable according to amount of foreign aid per
capita. Who is? Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, France,
Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Ireland, Germany are the top 10 (2004 figures).
The U.S. comes in at #15.As for criminalizing homelessness? Yup, we
don't have enough prisons or prisoners, so let's fill them up with the homeless.
What a joke.
False and misleading title.THe left the liberals, while their hearts
may be in the right place, have it all backwards as ususual,You do
NOT help the poor by forcible taking from another,If that was the
right way wouldn't Jesus have done that? or any of God's prophet?Would the axriptures be full of "take from wealthy",No.
it is about free aganecy, it is about love, it is about personal charity,Many great government programs and systems were created to help the
poor, bring "social justice", revolutions and world wars were fought,
millions upon milluions have been murdered, their stuff taken by governments,ALL of them, without excption, have been failures,Forcibly
taking from another doesn't work.Juesus showed they way,
you change people's heart so they are desirious to give and to help.The laws mentioned in the article were created to create a more safer and
healthy environment for all,We can help the poor, the right way, but
not by enabling them, and certianly history has shown not by taking
The legal issues:'Camping in public places''loiter in
front of a business or residence''begging for money'-------Consider the following,Imagine a person
loitering or begging for money; they camp out in a public place all day.Now, instead of the picture you drew in your head- imagine a
clean-shaved, showered, well-presentable person wearing a well-kept 3-piece
suit- doing the very same things.Such a man would not have faced the
legal recourse given to those without homes. Such a man is not trespassing on
the property of said businesses or residences, he simply stands in front or near
it doing nothing but standing. Most people would have walked by without even
noticing him. He asks for money and less people would probably be disgusted with
him.The problem people have is moth eaten clothes and a lack of
showering. I know college students who fit that description. So what justifies
them having less rights than any of us?---I'm all for
wanting a clean society and no more poverty- but taking away rights so we can
simply pretend there isn't a problem is not the way to do it.Better
Be kind to people in need. To criminalize poverty is wrong. Those who advocate
such are mean spirited and moraly wrong. Do what you can to help the poor.
Only you know what help you can provide, use your resources wisely. Sleep well
at night knowing that you did what you could. Peace.
To the people who say that those who receive welfare need to be drug-tested:
Does that include the CEOs who have been bailed out by the government?
If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus has universal application---Luke
16--- (and I don't know if it does)......in the next life it will be better to
have been a homeless beggar than to be rich and to have enjoyed every day of
life. Fifty years ago people lived in tents in our country-----we should
return to that with no shame.
BGood point.My suggestions1) Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the
top 5%;2) Adopt the budget ideas of the gang of 6;3) Promote home
ownership by giving no or low down payments to borrowers with ability to make
payments and who intend to occupy;4) Promote incentives to states to
provide a system of health care for all of its citizens;5) Appoint T Boon
Pickens to cabinet;6) Request and implement input from Warren Buffet, Jon
Huntsman and Ben Stein and others like them.7) Do away with the primary
system and implement instant runoff elections;I have tons of other ideas
but I'm running out of room.I'm still waiting on the inventor of the
internet to get back with me before I comment on your previous post, but Al is
sleeping it off.
thetruth@5:27 said:"Many great government programs and systems
were created to help the poor, bring "social justice", revolutions and
world wars were fought, millions upon milluions have been murdered, their stuff
taken by governments,ALL of them, without excption, have been
failures."This statement has no basis in fact whatsoever. The
GI bill was a failure? The CCC and WPA programs that kept my ancestors alive
during the Great Depression were a failure? Baby Your Baby, which provides
prenatal counseling and help to poor mothers, is a failure? WIC, which feeds
children and pregnant mothers, is a failure?The social safety nets
in Scandinavia are failures? You might not agree with them, but that certainly
doesn't make them "failures."If leaving it up to
charitable folks to solve all the world's ills was adequate to save the
desperate from terrible circumstances, it would have worked already. Some
problems are just too big to be addressed by individuals or even churches. Some
people have no voice with which to make their needs known, and have no
advocates. You cannot preach poverty away, and it is a gross perversion of the
New Testament to say that you can.
Author Barbara Ehrenreichs tribute to socialism, aka Nickel and Dimed
(mentioned in this article) is now being used by the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill for incoming freshman. I know. What a surprise to
learn that our college-age kids are being indoctrinated by the left. Heres a heads-up for all. The book Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the
Search for the American Dream by Adam Shepard is the answer to her rhetoric.
Get a hold of this book for the college-age kids in your life.
The frequency that blatant liberal propaganda appears in this paper is
astonishing!"Poverty" is not being criminalized, but
harmful behavior is.The myth of the "homeless vet" is
unfounded, as many of the mentally ill, who make up the majority of the truly
homeless (often by their own BAD choice) dishonestly claim to be vets as it
makes generous suckers more likely to give.The real problem is that
we have, through several generations of liberal handouts, created a permanent
underclass or dependent people who are unable or unwilling to function on their
own to support themselves. Many prefer handouts to a hand up. Work is for
suckers when government programs will provide for most needs.The
truly unfortunate, hard working, temporary homeless people are appropriate
recipients of charity from private individuals (all you folks above- write
checks!) and religious groups. It is telling that several people
above try to denigrate the amount of charity giving by Americans by measuring
only government programs.Poverty does not relieve anyone of their
responsibility for their own actions and doing what they can to support
themselves and get off the welfare/handout lifestyle.Hard work fixes
poverty, not government programs.
BobP wrote: I have never in my life, nor will I ever, pass a street beggar
without giving money. There but for the grace of God go I.Bob, Id
like you to meet a Salt Lake City women who holds a sign and begs for a living;
since, hey, people just stop and give her money. A camera crew follows her to
her home, from which she emerges dressed regularly to go to her other job. This
is a must-see.Go to youtube and search for John Stossel-03/25/11-A
and watch the special entitled Freeloading.
Lasvegaspam:Putting your comment in a proper context, Joseph Smith
said in effect that he would rather temporally assist 9 imposters rather than
turn away one truly needy. In any case, now-days I would surmise that there
truly are many more "truly needy" than there are "imposters"
-- just look at the unemployment rate to discern this.
My latest homeless drunk patient yet again called an ambulance for the millionth
time (on your charitable tax contributions) and spent the night getting
expensive tests in the ER (again paid for by your charitable tax contributions).
And like all homeless drunks manages to have enough money for a cell phone
(general assistance checks paid for by your charitable tax contributions) and
has been pregnant at least a dozen times (all paid for by your charitable tax
contributions) to raise criminals who are institutionalized (all paid for by
your charitable tax contributions)... you get the idea. She told me she uses the
money she panhandles to buy as much beer as she can get. You are not doing any
of them a faveor- you are enabling them and bankrupting our community. My father said "poor men have poor ways." I'm starting to see he is
right. Yes sometimes someone gets laid off, or has an unexpected illness, but
90% of the time poverty is self inflicted. And it breeds itself rampantly.
Nosea: Thank you for mentioning Joseph Smith, who learned (D&C 104:16) and
then taught that helping the poor is to be done in mine own way. So, when you're unsure of imposters or the truly needy, you'll never go wrong
by donating to the Church's welfare efforts. That is the Lords way.
Lasvegaspam:You miss interpret the scriptures here -- the
"Lord's way" spoken of in the D&C you quote is referring to living
the Law of Consecration, not the current welfare system as you imply. Maybe if
we had more members with real charity, not the phoney variety, as Joseph Smith
had, demonstrated by a real desire to assist the poor, we could actually live in
the "Lord's way," consecrating all we have to be a Zion people. So,
let's be clear on this single point -- we are not now living the "Lord's
way" collectively as members, and I would surmise from what I have seen
that the welfare program is a very poor substitute as poverty has actually
increased in and out of the church.
At the day of judgment I would much rather be deemed a sucker than a scrooge.
Trev,I think it is shameful to assume, based on one or two stories
and sayings from "my father," a ridiculous thing like 90% of poverty
is self inflicted. What brand of idiot would choose poverty? Only one who did
not have the capacity to choose otherwise. Remember, there is a real percentage
of people with diminished abilities that we have stripped of resources. There
are few places for a marginally mentally ill or diminished person to go for real
help, yet holding a job is terribly hard for them. They need our help, and can't
just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We need to stop being selfish and
judgmental and just help people, weeding out the frauds when we can but not at
the expense of those who truly need our help. Worry more about people than about
spending a tiny fraction of your money erroneously. Just help, and that is what
the government is for. We agree, via our laws and lawmakers, to help and protect
each other. Those that believe in god cannot justify any other path, I believe.