Artful Dodger: I certainly agree with that. It does not nullify my point.

Artful Dodger: Those are great quotes, Art. But how about when most of man's hard labor benefits the one he is working for, while only a fraction is left for himself? And how about when that fraction becomes smaller & smaller, due to the political & economic maneuverings & advantageous position of the owner?

The Usurper:'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.' We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15)

WHAT SOLOMON SAID:

Proverbs 14:21 He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.

Proverbs 17:5 Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.

*[Doesn’t O’Reilly mock the poor by generalizing that they are lazy & irresponsible, and by equating them primarily with those who “drink gin all day,” “smoke reefers 24/7,” “dropped out of school,” and are “too lazy to hold a job”? Does not Glenn Beck mock the poor by misquoting Benjamin Franklin to say, “We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of poverty”?]

Proverbs 19:1 Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.

Proverbs 19:17 He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Proverbs 21:13 Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.

*[This is gonna be a tough experience for Rush Limbaugh and like-minded individuals, i.e., the hard right Republicans, the Hannitys, the O’Reillys, etc.; but the filthy democrats who serve the same masters are in the same boat.]

Proverbs 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

*[There’s our credit system. Do you think Solomon is applauding this state of affairs, and not rather pronouncing judgment upon it? It seems that he is finding fault with the good ‘ole American way.]

Proverbs 22:9 He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.

Proverbs 22:22 Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate.

*[I take it Solomon believes that some people are robbed simply because they are poor and can’t defend themselves. Not much has changed.]

Proverbs 28:3 A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food.

*[This is like being a poor Republican…there’s a real anomaly here.]

Proverbs 28:6 Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.

Proverbs 28:8 He that by usury [i.e., interest on loans] and unjust gain [through unjust laws] increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.

*[You who love the American economic system, seem to me to despise the One Who inspired Solomon to write these words.]

Proverbs 28:11 The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out.

*[We ain’t as dumb as we look. :o)]

Proverbs 28:15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.

*[This is a comment on Rulers, i.e., it has to do with laws and the political system; it is not just “private charity” or the lack thereof that is considered here.]

Proverbs 28:27 He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack: but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.

Proverbs 29:7 The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.

*[Those who argue that opportunity abounds, that only the lazy don’t succeed, seem to me to “regard…not to know” the cause of the poor.]

Proverbs 29:14 The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.

*[The king here represents the leaders in any political system; in a democracy, we are all kings; charity is therefore Public by definition.]

Proverbs 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

*[This is political, especially in a democracy or republic where the people rule publicly based on the political & moral judgments they make privately.]

Proverbs 31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

*[This is what the Virtuous Woman does.]

WHAT THE APOSTLES SAID:

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

*[Peter served a different God, it seems, than the fundamentalist preachers you see on TV.]

Acts 2:44 -45 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

*[The early Christians don’t look like Capitalists to me. More like Socialists, if I may say so. They worked hard, then spread the wealth.]

Acts 4:34 -35 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

*[Can you imagine what the Repubs would say about these people today? Centralization & distribution of wealth so that all may benefit as needed…that is Socialism!]

James 2:5-6 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

*[James the Apostle seems to agree with Solomon, that most rich men oppress poor people. He seems to be on the side of the poor, and argues that the poor are wrongfully despised.]

James 5:1-6 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.

*[Sounds like today, doesn’t it? Wages fall, i.e., “the hire of the labourers…which is…kept back by fraud.” But the Repubs will argue we need to pour that “treasure” into the Pentagon to protect ourselves against all those dangerous women & children & old men we are blithely killing with our bombs the world over in the name of Freedom & Safety. And if you don't get paid more for the job you do making money for the rich, work harder!]

WHAT JESUS SAID:

Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

*[Rush Limbaugh might say: “I worked for my money! Let them work!” So would O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity & most Republicans who post here. There’s that word “distribute” again!]

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God .

*[Jesus seems to respect the poor more than most rightwing pundits…to understate the case.]

Luke 14:21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

*[The “poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind”…in short, all the kinds of people that most Repubs hold in more or less contempt. A few are honest enough to boldly admit it. Another few are good-hearted, but fail to discern the Republican agenda.]

Luke 21:1-3 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all.

*[Thank goodness there is a just universal balance-scale that will ensure that, in time, we all reap what we sow.]

The Usurper:

I would imagine, for those who truly pity the poor, it would be all of the above.


Well, I would argue thats where you are wrong.

Thats the whole point!

Conservatives arent against helping the poor... we are against it being what our federal government was established to do???


Our federal government was established to police us, and give us infrastructure, and courts, and military etc....

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Czuch: But you bring up a good point. Should the poor be a local, state, federal, or private concern?

I would imagine, for those who truly pity the poor, it would be all of the above.

Czuch: Actually this is not the point I have been debating. I have been arguing that rightwing Republicans unduly criticize the poor. And I have been arguing that U.S. laws & policies unduly favor the rich. I have also been probing for attitudes in general about the poor, among posters on this board. And I believe that, because most posters here do not recognize the imbalance in our politico-economic system, in favor of the rich and to the detriment of the poor, nor do they find fault with the statements of Beck, O'Reilly & Limbaugh, those posters have no real pity for the poor.

Czuch:  

The Usurper:

Should we pity the poor?

So, maybe we should pity the poor... but the real debate is, is it the established goal of our founding fathers for the federal government to pity the poor???

The Usurper:

Should we pity the poor?

the point here, we are debating is, what is the federal governments role in all of this?

Surly the poor are to be considered, but are they a local or state or private concern? Because it seems clear that the federal government was not created to take care of poor people!

Should we pity the poor?

Artful Dodger: Ok, thanks.

The Usurper: It doesn't matter what I think since I am not familar with the laws.  Off the top of my head I'd say I don't agree with such a generalized statement.

Bernice: I meant to say, "it doesn't necessarily follow that those laws are NOT written by the rich." As a pawn, apparently I can't modify my posts.

Bernice: Thank you for your opinion. However, even if "laws are written to cover all races and creeds regardless of standing in the community," it doesn't necessarily follow that those laws are written by the rich. But I understand your point...that in Australia the laws do not favor the wealthy.

The Usurper: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor

written by the rich?.....I don't know about US of A but that sounds like crap to me......laws are written to cover all races and credes regardless of standing in the community....well they are in Australia....there isn't one law for the rich and another for the poor.


Do I disagree.........YES

Artful Dodger: I agree that the author of any given law does not necessarily favor its author. But my argument is that, in the case of most laws in the United States, they do. My point is a general one, that tax laws, bankruptcy laws, the Federal Reserve, laws on interest, corporate laws, tend by their nature to increase the wealth of the the wealthy and decrease the wealth of the poor. I am simply asking if you disagree with this generalized statement.

The Usurper:It's an ad hominem argument.  Just because a law is written by someone with money doesn't  make the law a bad law.  So define the law and argue the merits of your case.  A person's financial situation isn't an argument.

Artful Dodger: Some of the reasons people are poor is because the laws of our land are written by the rich and favor the rich, to the detriment of the poor. Do you disagree with this?

The Usurper: I don't know why people are poor.  In the US, most areas offer enough opportunities where if people work hard enough, they can lift themselves out of cycles of poverty.  I have more than my parents.  I started when I was in my twenties.  I saved my money.  Put myself through college.  Held three jobs when necessary.   My family never went hungry because I was willing to do what it took to keep employed.  When I lost a job, I was back out looking right away.  Sure I got unemployment and for a very short time (weeks) I benefited from food stamps.  But the point is, I kept trying.  I didn't rely on the government, I relied on myself.  And 30 years later I am debt free.  O'Reilly's point is that it can be done and many people have done it.  And many who haven't "done it" are just plain lazy or unmotivated.  They have no one to blame but themselves.  If you waste your youth, then when you are older, you'll have nothing to show for your years.  Who is at fault for that?

Vikings: It would seem to me that our policies & laws neither "establish justice" nor "promote the general welfare."

I would contend that the tax laws, the Federal Reserve, corporate law, the laws of interest on loans, bankruptcy laws, etc., all promote the interests of the rich & tend to make them richer, while making the poor poorer. I do agree that these laws are very intrusive.

I would also assert that our foreign policy serves to make the rich richer, which is its design, while making most of the rest of the world's citizens poorer, also by design.

And I would argue that the statements below made by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly portray an unmasked contempt of the poor.

The Usurper:Promoting the general welfare has to do with US citizens and is not specifically referring to the poor. 

It has to do with Congress providing laws that are consistent with principles of self government.  Legislation is made to be in the best interest of the Nation.  In no way is there a constitutional right to welfare, if that's what you are getting at. 

Artful Dodger: So....most people are poor because they refuse to work?

Artful Dodger: To "establish justice" and "to promote the general welfare" means "No" in regard to the poor?

The Usurper:No

The Usurper:
Are not rightwing attitudes towards poverty in general and the poor in
particular, overly critical?

No.  They are not.  They are right on.  What is more important is why anyone on the left would want to perpetuate the myth that people can't pick themselves up by their bootstraps.  The government is NOT the answer, it's the problem.  Why work when the system allows you to do nothing and get paid?  Only very hard cases deserve government help.  But most can do somthing for themselves and they do nothing.  And they are told not to worry, the government will help them.  If you refuse to work, you don't deserve anything but society's contempt.

Do they not heap blame upon the poor for
being poor? Do they view the poor with more or less contempt?

They heap blame on those that offer excuses as to why the poor are helpless to help themselves.  This is the lie of the left. 

The Usurper: It sure doesn't mean 900 billion in pork,
Is says promote (make policy that is non intrusive, nor over taxing) not provide or in other words give

Vikings: Thank you. So what does it mean to "establish justice" and to "promote the general welfare," in terms of the poor?

The Usurper: The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

Vikings: What does this country stand for?

Vikings: Do you agree with the sentence as it stands?

The Usurper: And much of the blame for the poor is liberalism, putting them on welfare in the first place.
You see the founding fathers thought long and hard before writing"..Provide for the common defense and Promote the general welfare". but liberal government wants to downsize the military while expanding welfare. just the opposite of what this country stands for

The Usurper: but he did not say period to that sentence. It's just like you trying to take Limbaugh's statement out of context,

Artful Dodger: Thank you for stating your opinion clearly.

My real intent with these quotes & questions, is to ask:

Are not rightwing attitudes towards poverty in general and the poor in particular, overly critical? Do they not heap blame upon the poor for being poor? Do they view the poor with more or less contempt?

I believe they do, but I am open to being corrected.

The Usurper: It's a generalized statement and it's accurate.

Vikings: In some cases that is true, that "you can succeed if you get educated and work hard," though less and less so lately.

O'Reilly said in the same quote:

"It's hard to do it because you have got to look people in the eye and tell them they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's going to want to do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen."

Do you agree with this statement?

Bernice: Yes I do. :o)

So is it okay to denigrate the unter mensch?

Bernice: Just like Rush Limbaugh

Vikings: you can also succeed if you are uneducated and work hard. You do NOT need a brilliant mind to succeed....


Can somebody please clarify success?

The Usurper: there is no way I would confuse (conflate) you with AD...

"unter mensch" = the under priveledged, it is German (I think) and is the lower classes...the poor, the unwashed etc etc....you get my meaning

The Usurper: "You can succeed if you get educated and work hard, period"
and just what part of that statement do you not agree with?

Artful Dodger: The point is that O'Reilly defines poverty as laziness & irresponsibility, whereas your position is softer...that poverty is a result of laziness & irresponsibility only "in many cases".

"You know one of my favorite quotes on poverty comes from Benjamin Franklin. I love this quote: "We should make the poor uncomfortable and kick them out of poverty." I love that!"

The problem, Franklin didn't say that. He DID say:

"But poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue: 'tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright."

And...

"The Poor have little, Beggars none; the Rich too much, enough not one."

And...

"The church the state, and the poor, are 3 daughters which we should maintain, but not portion off."

Should we maintain the poor, as Franklin suggests? Or should we kick them out of poverty, as Beck recommends?

The Usurper: I don't see your point

Bernice: I am one of the poor ones, if that is what you mean.

But when you said, "if you that rich...", it sounded to me like you confused O'Reilly's statement with mine. Just as you evidently conflated Artful Dodger's post on the Holocaust with something I said (which I didn't).

What does "unter mensch" mean?

The Usurper: my comprehension and understanding is/has/was a lot more successful than your KM & TNP....

I didn't miss the point at all.........the post was denigrating the unter mensch, and I assumed you were one of them because you didnt have a PAID membership.

He said ***my fellow 1 percenters and I***

I am not discussing 9/11 (so far), so I am a little looser on the reins & misbehaving a little, perhaps. (Only a little).

But as to 9/11...stay tuned. :o)

Artful Dodger: O'Reilly said "Period", not "in many cases". It is another of those general, absolute kinds of statements, such as Rush Limbaugh's.

Artful Dodger: Bernice DOES need to work on her reading comprehension. This isn't the first post where she has missed the point or gotten confused over who said what, etc. Perhaps it is deliberate. But perhaps not. If not, maybe my post is too harsh, even if true. For that, I apologize.