Get E-Mail Updates

Economic Free Fall Without a Safety Net

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Earlier this week the New York Times reported that even as many states have skyrocketing unemployment, their welfare rolls are shrinking. As a researcher for a racial justice think tank, I've been traveling the country collecting accounts of how this recession is playing out in the lives of everyday people. Millions who are out of work, losing homes, and struggling to stay afloat are nevertheless denied access to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The punitive rules established after 20 years of racially coded frenzy to "end welfare as we know it" have left Americans with no safety net during this deepening economic crisis.

TANF replaces the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (to insert the "temporary") and its creation relied on mythologized images of the "welfare queen" driving Cadillacs conjured by Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign. This kind of racial scapegoating, the politics many believe we outgrew with Obama's election, vilified welfare recipients (who have always been mostly white) and led to rules that are so complicated and punitive that many struggling families cannot get the help they need. Now that all of us -- not just people of color -- are in a recession free fall, there is nothing available to catch us. To fix TANF, we will have to put aside racial stereotypes to do what is best for the largest number of people.

When Welfare Reform passed in 1996, our macro economic outlook was optimistic and the rhetoric of "personal responsibility" was ubiquitous. The welfare rolls plummeted and conservative and liberals alike declared success. But unknown numbers of families (we mostly stopped counting) were left underemployed, underpaid, and unable to comply with punitive regulations. According to Robert Wharton, the president and chief executive officer of the Community Economic Development Administration, "Ten years into welfare reform, caseloads may have decreased, but the number of people living in poverty has not". Welfare reform set up countless barriers to access. The most egregious of these are punitive work requirements and five-year maximum time limits for lifetime eligibility.

One of the places I stopped in my travels was Detroit. Michigan has the highest unemployment in the country, passing 10 percent last month. Detroit has been hit even harder. Yet, reports the Times, the state cut its welfare rolls over 13 percent last year. In Michigan rules, like those in many states, public assistance is tied to work. A 30-year-old woman I met, lets call her A, lost her job as a teacher's assistant in a Detroit area public school, and then lost her TANF because she was no longer working. Now she has neither job nor welfare, and she's facing foreclosure with her four children. I heard dozens of examples like this -- people who couldn't find a job, or even a decent volunteer opportunity, without child care, transportation, and needing more help than the new welfare system provides.

A society cannot survive without a safety net, and we don't have one during the worst economic crisis in decades. TANF needs serious reconsideration including a rescinding of punitive work requirements and an end to the time limits that cut people off after five years total enrollment. We need to ensure that families have access to supplementary benefits like food stamps, fully subsidized child care, transportation, and housing assistance, and we need to remove debilitating eligibility requirements that exclude many documented immigrants and people with past involvement with the criminal justice system. To do these things Americans have to be willing to move past their racial stereotypes about people of color and welfare.

The country recently came together in a proud moment to inaugurate our first president of color. We did so by putting our racial divisions aside in the name of collective economic self-interest. Now we need to do the same by rebuilding a system of support for everyone.

portrait-seth-wesslerSeth Wessler is a Research Associate at the Applied Research Center.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: duhsciple

02-07-2009 @ 11:10pm

To the hungry, give bread.

To those who have bread already, give a hunger for justice.

Amen

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:19am

Atta boy James...throw in a good Nazi reference. That'll improve the dialogue. Class.

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:25am

A society can survive without a safety net; however, I think what the author meant to say is that some individuals in a society without a safety don't survive very well.

Although, it remains to be seen whether a society can long last with a generous social welfare system. I don't think we (meaning the western world) are far enough along into that experiment to determine the answer.

by: JamesM

02-08-2009 @ 1:25am

Gee, I wonder if you were nearly as outraged by the comment elevating "efficiency" over compassion that prompted my response. Probably not. It figures.

Being such an authority on "class" as you are, I take your comment as a great compliment. Thanks Eric.

by: SisterMarie

02-09-2009 @ 1:46am

Eric77,

If you're going to take JamesM to task for his "komandante" comment, you should take time to establish the source of your reference. The original "trains run on time" comment was not made about Hitler's Germany but Mussolini's Italy.

"Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but "one had to admit" one thing about the Dictator: he "made the trains run on time."

I believe that the original comment was not a grudging endorsement of the dictator, but instead was more along the lines of the Biblical admonition of what gain is realized if we gain the whole world but lose our own soul. I believe that the violence that we have wrought in Iraq and the callous treatment of the poor under Bush were classic examples of gaining the world but losing our souls.

by: nuclearferret

02-09-2009 @ 5:05pm

Whether she appreciates it or not, it is the reality when it comes to a debate on policy, which is the point of the article. Just as the "welfare queen" anecdote was misleading, so is the "worthy poor" example of the teacher. Twist the remark how you want, but the reality is that national policy is not aimed at solving the issues of every individual.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 1:34pm

What an indictment of our society that this former teacher's assistant could be forced to leave her home and with her four children live in her car or in a homeless shelter. Reagan would have called her a "welfare queen", but she and her children are part of God's creation.

by: xfree9

02-06-2009 @ 3:21pm

"A society cannot survive without a safety net..."

I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence.

On a positive note, I'm not against support systems, but the problem with support systems is that they are not sustainable long-term, or create long-term dependencies. Once the State gets into supporting citizens, it takes a lot of effort to get out. As long as they are temporary/short term, I'm not as skeptical or disagreeable on them.

by: kevin47

02-09-2009 @ 6:39pm

Actually, Mussolini was known in his day (thanks to assiduous dissemination of Italian propaganda) for making the trains run on time.

I don't know what "yah her komandante" refers to, but it looks German, and the statement is utterly stupid regardless of to whom it refers.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 4:53pm

I'm sure that the 30-year old teacher really appreciates being referred to as a "pie in the sky anecdote." Take a trip down to your local homeless shelter and you'll meet plenty more pie in the sky anecdotes.

by: DITE

02-06-2009 @ 5:42pm

"TANF replaces the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (to insert the "temporary") and its creation relied on mythologized images of the "welfare queen" driving Cadillacs conjured by Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign."

Welfare reform is celebrated by both Republicans and Democrats. It was reformed under a Democratic president and a Republican congress. It's not myth. Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency.

" But unknown numbers of families (we mostly stopped counting) were left underemployed, underpaid, and unable to comply with punitive regulations."

Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

Marie,
I'm aware that Mussolini is the dictator that is usually associated with "making the trains run on time". James wrote in what I assumed was German, so I assumed he was making a reference to a particular German dictator of the national socialist variety. Either way, my point was that throwing in a reference to Hitler, Mussolini or any other atrocious historical figure never helps improve dialogue between two people. If James had a problem with something DITE wrote he should make his point without using analogies to Hitler or other people like him. It kills conversation and it's unclassy.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

James,
Very little written on this blog or in the comments rises to the level of "outrage" in my mind. I'll leave "outrage" to the ranters. Also, please don't make assumptions about my thoughts on this matter. It, along with Hitler allusions, is not a good way to stir thoughtful conversation.

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-09-2009 @ 11:20pm

Please, if you're going to go around doing German, at least get the spelling right. It's "Ja, Herr Kommandant". In the military, it's more likely to be "Jawohl, Herr Commandant!" At least that's what Sgt. Schultz always said on Hogan's Heroes. That, and "I see nus-SINK!"

LV

by: JamesM

02-09-2009 @ 11:58pm

You are so right, Eric, since you did not express any meaningful thoughts in writing to me, my response was really unnecessary. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation that you always foster here. It is greatly appreciated along with the depth and profundity of all of your comments.

by: JamesM

02-06-2009 @ 8:47pm

"Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators." Dite

Didn't you look at Seth Wessler's picture? He is not a highly sophisticated, exquisitely articulate grownup like you. He is an idealistic youth who happens to think that it isn't good thing that people con't earn enough to feed their families.

"Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency. " DITE

Yah her komandante. We must make sure that trains run on time!

by: jonabark

02-10-2009 @ 4:13pm

The concept of a "safety net", or the concept that many Europeans use proudly of a "welfare state", that sees it's prime purpose as promoting the general welfare of all citizens, as opposed to promoting the power of the wealthy and successful is really just a matter of where the lines are drawn and who is safe and who isn't. Free marketeers historically want contracts enforced, police protection, loose environmental regulations, low taxes, armies that provide cheap access to raw materials, a desperate labor pool etc. None of these things are automatically provided by "freedom". They are the product of some concept of the general welfare, or they are the product of rawer forms or political power. The particular vision we have been living with has been skewed away from the general welfare, away from compassion , away from ecological wisdom, and toward self indulgence, toward violence, toward exploitation, toward greed as good. The presumptions of this system are deeply flawed and have a very long history. They produce world-wide economic crashes, and world wide warfare mixed with periods of extravagant opulence for a relatively small part of the population.

What I am saying is that the arguments of conservatives against safety nets is highly selective. Bankers, industrialists and a large army and military industrial political complex all benefit from a safety net that ranges from the absolute socialism of the army or political office to the bailouts of bankers and big business. Its just a matter of where you draw the lines.

Eisenhower was a Republican. If anyone suggested returning to the tax and social welfare system operating under his presidency they would be called a socialist. The lines move but the war is not a war with some dastardly other. The war is in our minds. Maybe an amicable separation into red states and blue is the answer - an experiment in what ideas really work. Or we could go on with the current stalemate and watch the house fall down domino style.

Where are the conservatives who talk about personal accountability now? What of accountability for bankers, corporate book cookers, political bribe takers, tax riggers, offshore account gamers, torturers, war criminals, spies without warrants? Why are these people the only ones with a safety net in the world of those who call themselves conservative?

by: ando

02-07-2009 @ 3:13am

"I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence."

xfree, I wonder what you think about how businesses took advantage of child labor, made people work under terrible conditions for 12 hours or more a day, and severely underpaid their workers. All before the government stepped in to make laws outlawing the oppression of children and having a sane work week. You seem to think business can regulate itself. Like it's some kind of god we must bow down to. One only wonders if somebody like you has ever had to do manual labor in his life.

by: duhsciple

02-07-2009 @ 11:10pm

To the hungry, give bread.

To those who have bread already, give a hunger for justice.

Amen

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:19am

Atta boy James...throw in a good Nazi reference. That'll improve the dialogue. Class.

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:25am

A society can survive without a safety net; however, I think what the author meant to say is that some individuals in a society without a safety don't survive very well.

Although, it remains to be seen whether a society can long last with a generous social welfare system. I don't think we (meaning the western world) are far enough along into that experiment to determine the answer.

by: JamesM

02-08-2009 @ 1:25am

Gee, I wonder if you were nearly as outraged by the comment elevating "efficiency" over compassion that prompted my response. Probably not. It figures.

Being such an authority on "class" as you are, I take your comment as a great compliment. Thanks Eric.

by: SisterMarie

02-09-2009 @ 1:46am

Eric77,

If you're going to take JamesM to task for his "komandante" comment, you should take time to establish the source of your reference. The original "trains run on time" comment was not made about Hitler's Germany but Mussolini's Italy.

"Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but "one had to admit" one thing about the Dictator: he "made the trains run on time."

I believe that the original comment was not a grudging endorsement of the dictator, but instead was more along the lines of the Biblical admonition of what gain is realized if we gain the whole world but lose our own soul. I believe that the violence that we have wrought in Iraq and the callous treatment of the poor under Bush were classic examples of gaining the world but losing our souls.

by: nuclearferret

02-09-2009 @ 5:05pm

Whether she appreciates it or not, it is the reality when it comes to a debate on policy, which is the point of the article. Just as the "welfare queen" anecdote was misleading, so is the "worthy poor" example of the teacher. Twist the remark how you want, but the reality is that national policy is not aimed at solving the issues of every individual.

by: kevin47

02-09-2009 @ 6:39pm

Actually, Mussolini was known in his day (thanks to assiduous dissemination of Italian propaganda) for making the trains run on time.

I don't know what "yah her komandante" refers to, but it looks German, and the statement is utterly stupid regardless of to whom it refers.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

Marie,
I'm aware that Mussolini is the dictator that is usually associated with "making the trains run on time". James wrote in what I assumed was German, so I assumed he was making a reference to a particular German dictator of the national socialist variety. Either way, my point was that throwing in a reference to Hitler, Mussolini or any other atrocious historical figure never helps improve dialogue between two people. If James had a problem with something DITE wrote he should make his point without using analogies to Hitler or other people like him. It kills conversation and it's unclassy.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

James,
Very little written on this blog or in the comments rises to the level of "outrage" in my mind. I'll leave "outrage" to the ranters. Also, please don't make assumptions about my thoughts on this matter. It, along with Hitler allusions, is not a good way to stir thoughtful conversation.

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-09-2009 @ 11:20pm

Please, if you're going to go around doing German, at least get the spelling right. It's "Ja, Herr Kommandant". In the military, it's more likely to be "Jawohl, Herr Commandant!" At least that's what Sgt. Schultz always said on Hogan's Heroes. That, and "I see nus-SINK!"

LV

by: JamesM

02-09-2009 @ 11:58pm

You are so right, Eric, since you did not express any meaningful thoughts in writing to me, my response was really unnecessary. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation that you always foster here. It is greatly appreciated along with the depth and profundity of all of your comments.

by: jonabark

02-10-2009 @ 4:13pm

The concept of a "safety net", or the concept that many Europeans use proudly of a "welfare state", that sees it's prime purpose as promoting the general welfare of all citizens, as opposed to promoting the power of the wealthy and successful is really just a matter of where the lines are drawn and who is safe and who isn't. Free marketeers historically want contracts enforced, police protection, loose environmental regulations, low taxes, armies that provide cheap access to raw materials, a desperate labor pool etc. None of these things are automatically provided by "freedom". They are the product of some concept of the general welfare, or they are the product of rawer forms or political power. The particular vision we have been living with has been skewed away from the general welfare, away from compassion , away from ecological wisdom, and toward self indulgence, toward violence, toward exploitation, toward greed as good. The presumptions of this system are deeply flawed and have a very long history. They produce world-wide economic crashes, and world wide warfare mixed with periods of extravagant opulence for a relatively small part of the population.

What I am saying is that the arguments of conservatives against safety nets is highly selective. Bankers, industrialists and a large army and military industrial political complex all benefit from a safety net that ranges from the absolute socialism of the army or political office to the bailouts of bankers and big business. Its just a matter of where you draw the lines.

Eisenhower was a Republican. If anyone suggested returning to the tax and social welfare system operating under his presidency they would be called a socialist. The lines move but the war is not a war with some dastardly other. The war is in our minds. Maybe an amicable separation into red states and blue is the answer - an experiment in what ideas really work. Or we could go on with the current stalemate and watch the house fall down domino style.

Where are the conservatives who talk about personal accountability now? What of accountability for bankers, corporate book cookers, political bribe takers, tax riggers, offshore account gamers, torturers, war criminals, spies without warrants? Why are these people the only ones with a safety net in the world of those who call themselves conservative?

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 1:34pm

What an indictment of our society that this former teacher's assistant could be forced to leave her home and with her four children live in her car or in a homeless shelter. Reagan would have called her a "welfare queen", but she and her children are part of God's creation.

by: xfree9

02-06-2009 @ 3:21pm

"A society cannot survive without a safety net..."

I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence.

On a positive note, I'm not against support systems, but the problem with support systems is that they are not sustainable long-term, or create long-term dependencies. Once the State gets into supporting citizens, it takes a lot of effort to get out. As long as they are temporary/short term, I'm not as skeptical or disagreeable on them.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 4:53pm

I'm sure that the 30-year old teacher really appreciates being referred to as a "pie in the sky anecdote." Take a trip down to your local homeless shelter and you'll meet plenty more pie in the sky anecdotes.

by: DITE

02-06-2009 @ 5:42pm

"TANF replaces the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (to insert the "temporary") and its creation relied on mythologized images of the "welfare queen" driving Cadillacs conjured by Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign."

Welfare reform is celebrated by both Republicans and Democrats. It was reformed under a Democratic president and a Republican congress. It's not myth. Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency.

" But unknown numbers of families (we mostly stopped counting) were left underemployed, underpaid, and unable to comply with punitive regulations."

Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators.

by: JamesM

02-06-2009 @ 8:47pm

"Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators." Dite

Didn't you look at Seth Wessler's picture? He is not a highly sophisticated, exquisitely articulate grownup like you. He is an idealistic youth who happens to think that it isn't good thing that people con't earn enough to feed their families.

"Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency. " DITE

Yah her komandante. We must make sure that trains run on time!

by: ando

02-07-2009 @ 3:13am

"I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence."

xfree, I wonder what you think about how businesses took advantage of child labor, made people work under terrible conditions for 12 hours or more a day, and severely underpaid their workers. All before the government stepped in to make laws outlawing the oppression of children and having a sane work week. You seem to think business can regulate itself. Like it's some kind of god we must bow down to. One only wonders if somebody like you has ever had to do manual labor in his life.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 1:34pm

What an indictment of our society that this former teacher's assistant could be forced to leave her home and with her four children live in her car or in a homeless shelter. Reagan would have called her a "welfare queen", but she and her children are part of God's creation.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 1:34pm

What an indictment of our society that this former teacher's assistant could be forced to leave her home and with her four children live in her car or in a homeless shelter. Reagan would have called her a "welfare queen", but she and her children are part of God's creation.

by: xfree9

02-06-2009 @ 3:21pm

"A society cannot survive without a safety net..."

I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence.

On a positive note, I'm not against support systems, but the problem with support systems is that they are not sustainable long-term, or create long-term dependencies. Once the State gets into supporting citizens, it takes a lot of effort to get out. As long as they are temporary/short term, I'm not as skeptical or disagreeable on them.

by: xfree9

02-06-2009 @ 3:21pm

"A society cannot survive without a safety net..."

I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence.

On a positive note, I'm not against support systems, but the problem with support systems is that they are not sustainable long-term, or create long-term dependencies. Once the State gets into supporting citizens, it takes a lot of effort to get out. As long as they are temporary/short term, I'm not as skeptical or disagreeable on them.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 4:53pm

I'm sure that the 30-year old teacher really appreciates being referred to as a "pie in the sky anecdote." Take a trip down to your local homeless shelter and you'll meet plenty more pie in the sky anecdotes.

by: SisterMarie

02-06-2009 @ 4:53pm

I'm sure that the 30-year old teacher really appreciates being referred to as a "pie in the sky anecdote." Take a trip down to your local homeless shelter and you'll meet plenty more pie in the sky anecdotes.

by: DITE

02-06-2009 @ 5:42pm

"TANF replaces the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (to insert the "temporary") and its creation relied on mythologized images of the "welfare queen" driving Cadillacs conjured by Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign."

Welfare reform is celebrated by both Republicans and Democrats. It was reformed under a Democratic president and a Republican congress. It's not myth. Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency.

" But unknown numbers of families (we mostly stopped counting) were left underemployed, underpaid, and unable to comply with punitive regulations."

Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators.

by: DITE

02-06-2009 @ 5:42pm

"TANF replaces the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (to insert the "temporary") and its creation relied on mythologized images of the "welfare queen" driving Cadillacs conjured by Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign."

Welfare reform is celebrated by both Republicans and Democrats. It was reformed under a Democratic president and a Republican congress. It's not myth. Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency.

" But unknown numbers of families (we mostly stopped counting) were left underemployed, underpaid, and unable to comply with punitive regulations."

Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators.

by: JamesM

02-06-2009 @ 8:47pm

"Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators." Dite

Didn't you look at Seth Wessler's picture? He is not a highly sophisticated, exquisitely articulate grownup like you. He is an idealistic youth who happens to think that it isn't good thing that people con't earn enough to feed their families.

"Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency. " DITE

Yah her komandante. We must make sure that trains run on time!

by: JamesM

02-06-2009 @ 8:47pm

"Underemployed and underpaid are silly words grown ups don't use. Grownups understand that prices are communicators." Dite

Didn't you look at Seth Wessler's picture? He is not a highly sophisticated, exquisitely articulate grownup like you. He is an idealistic youth who happens to think that it isn't good thing that people con't earn enough to feed their families.

"Reforming AFDC was a positive move for this country no mater how you measure it. And, It turns out that when you reward inefficiency you get more inefficiency. " DITE

Yah her komandante. We must make sure that trains run on time!

by: ando

02-07-2009 @ 3:13am

"I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence."

xfree, I wonder what you think about how businesses took advantage of child labor, made people work under terrible conditions for 12 hours or more a day, and severely underpaid their workers. All before the government stepped in to make laws outlawing the oppression of children and having a sane work week. You seem to think business can regulate itself. Like it's some kind of god we must bow down to. One only wonders if somebody like you has ever had to do manual labor in his life.

by: ando

02-07-2009 @ 3:13am

"I'd like proof, please, rather than pie-in-the-sky anecdotes supposedly supporting your support for more government dependence."

xfree, I wonder what you think about how businesses took advantage of child labor, made people work under terrible conditions for 12 hours or more a day, and severely underpaid their workers. All before the government stepped in to make laws outlawing the oppression of children and having a sane work week. You seem to think business can regulate itself. Like it's some kind of god we must bow down to. One only wonders if somebody like you has ever had to do manual labor in his life.

by: duhsciple

02-07-2009 @ 11:10pm

To the hungry, give bread.

To those who have bread already, give a hunger for justice.

Amen

by: duhsciple

02-07-2009 @ 11:10pm

To the hungry, give bread.

To those who have bread already, give a hunger for justice.

Amen

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:19am

Atta boy James...throw in a good Nazi reference. That'll improve the dialogue. Class.

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:19am

Atta boy James...throw in a good Nazi reference. That'll improve the dialogue. Class.

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:25am

A society can survive without a safety net; however, I think what the author meant to say is that some individuals in a society without a safety don't survive very well.

Although, it remains to be seen whether a society can long last with a generous social welfare system. I don't think we (meaning the western world) are far enough along into that experiment to determine the answer.

by: Eric77

02-08-2009 @ 12:25am

A society can survive without a safety net; however, I think what the author meant to say is that some individuals in a society without a safety don't survive very well.

Although, it remains to be seen whether a society can long last with a generous social welfare system. I don't think we (meaning the western world) are far enough along into that experiment to determine the answer.

by: JamesM

02-08-2009 @ 1:25am

Gee, I wonder if you were nearly as outraged by the comment elevating "efficiency" over compassion that prompted my response. Probably not. It figures.

Being such an authority on "class" as you are, I take your comment as a great compliment. Thanks Eric.

by: JamesM

02-08-2009 @ 1:25am

Gee, I wonder if you were nearly as outraged by the comment elevating "efficiency" over compassion that prompted my response. Probably not. It figures.

Being such an authority on "class" as you are, I take your comment as a great compliment. Thanks Eric.

by: SisterMarie

02-09-2009 @ 1:46am

Eric77,

If you're going to take JamesM to task for his "komandante" comment, you should take time to establish the source of your reference. The original "trains run on time" comment was not made about Hitler's Germany but Mussolini's Italy.

"Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but "one had to admit" one thing about the Dictator: he "made the trains run on time."

I believe that the original comment was not a grudging endorsement of the dictator, but instead was more along the lines of the Biblical admonition of what gain is realized if we gain the whole world but lose our own soul. I believe that the violence that we have wrought in Iraq and the callous treatment of the poor under Bush were classic examples of gaining the world but losing our souls.

by: SisterMarie

02-09-2009 @ 1:46am

Eric77,

If you're going to take JamesM to task for his "komandante" comment, you should take time to establish the source of your reference. The original "trains run on time" comment was not made about Hitler's Germany but Mussolini's Italy.

"Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but "one had to admit" one thing about the Dictator: he "made the trains run on time."

I believe that the original comment was not a grudging endorsement of the dictator, but instead was more along the lines of the Biblical admonition of what gain is realized if we gain the whole world but lose our own soul. I believe that the violence that we have wrought in Iraq and the callous treatment of the poor under Bush were classic examples of gaining the world but losing our souls.

by: nuclearferret

02-09-2009 @ 5:05pm

Whether she appreciates it or not, it is the reality when it comes to a debate on policy, which is the point of the article. Just as the "welfare queen" anecdote was misleading, so is the "worthy poor" example of the teacher. Twist the remark how you want, but the reality is that national policy is not aimed at solving the issues of every individual.

by: nuclearferret

02-09-2009 @ 5:05pm

Whether she appreciates it or not, it is the reality when it comes to a debate on policy, which is the point of the article. Just as the "welfare queen" anecdote was misleading, so is the "worthy poor" example of the teacher. Twist the remark how you want, but the reality is that national policy is not aimed at solving the issues of every individual.

by: kevin47

02-09-2009 @ 6:39pm

Actually, Mussolini was known in his day (thanks to assiduous dissemination of Italian propaganda) for making the trains run on time.

I don't know what "yah her komandante" refers to, but it looks German, and the statement is utterly stupid regardless of to whom it refers.

by: kevin47

02-09-2009 @ 6:39pm

Actually, Mussolini was known in his day (thanks to assiduous dissemination of Italian propaganda) for making the trains run on time.

I don't know what "yah her komandante" refers to, but it looks German, and the statement is utterly stupid regardless of to whom it refers.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

Marie,
I'm aware that Mussolini is the dictator that is usually associated with "making the trains run on time". James wrote in what I assumed was German, so I assumed he was making a reference to a particular German dictator of the national socialist variety. Either way, my point was that throwing in a reference to Hitler, Mussolini or any other atrocious historical figure never helps improve dialogue between two people. If James had a problem with something DITE wrote he should make his point without using analogies to Hitler or other people like him. It kills conversation and it's unclassy.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

Marie,
I'm aware that Mussolini is the dictator that is usually associated with "making the trains run on time". James wrote in what I assumed was German, so I assumed he was making a reference to a particular German dictator of the national socialist variety. Either way, my point was that throwing in a reference to Hitler, Mussolini or any other atrocious historical figure never helps improve dialogue between two people. If James had a problem with something DITE wrote he should make his point without using analogies to Hitler or other people like him. It kills conversation and it's unclassy.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

James,
Very little written on this blog or in the comments rises to the level of "outrage" in my mind. I'll leave "outrage" to the ranters. Also, please don't make assumptions about my thoughts on this matter. It, along with Hitler allusions, is not a good way to stir thoughtful conversation.

by: Eric77

02-09-2009 @ 11:02pm

James,
Very little written on this blog or in the comments rises to the level of "outrage" in my mind. I'll leave "outrage" to the ranters. Also, please don't make assumptions about my thoughts on this matter. It, along with Hitler allusions, is not a good way to stir thoughtful conversation.

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-09-2009 @ 11:20pm

Please, if you're going to go around doing German, at least get the spelling right. It's "Ja, Herr Kommandant". In the military, it's more likely to be "Jawohl, Herr Commandant!" At least that's what Sgt. Schultz always said on Hogan's Heroes. That, and "I see nus-SINK!"

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

02-09-2009 @ 11:20pm

Please, if you're going to go around doing German, at least get the spelling right. It's "Ja, Herr Kommandant". In the military, it's more likely to be "Jawohl, Herr Commandant!" At least that's what Sgt. Schultz always said on Hogan's Heroes. That, and "I see nus-SINK!"

LV

by: JamesM

02-09-2009 @ 11:58pm

You are so right, Eric, since you did not express any meaningful thoughts in writing to me, my response was really unnecessary. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation that you always foster here. It is greatly appreciated along with the depth and profundity of all of your comments.

by: JamesM

02-09-2009 @ 11:58pm

You are so right, Eric, since you did not express any meaningful thoughts in writing to me, my response was really unnecessary. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation that you always foster here. It is greatly appreciated along with the depth and profundity of all of your comments.

by: jonabark

02-10-2009 @ 4:13pm

The concept of a "safety net", or the concept that many Europeans use proudly of a "welfare state", that sees it's prime purpose as promoting the general welfare of all citizens, as opposed to promoting the power of the wealthy and successful is really just a matter of where the lines are drawn and who is safe and who isn't. Free marketeers historically want contracts enforced, police protection, loose environmental regulations, low taxes, armies that provide cheap access to raw materials, a desperate labor pool etc. None of these things are automatically provided by "freedom". They are the product of some concept of the general welfare, or they are the product of rawer forms or political power. The particular vision we have been living with has been skewed away from the general welfare, away from compassion , away from ecological wisdom, and toward self indulgence, toward violence, toward exploitation, toward greed as good. The presumptions of this system are deeply flawed and have a very long history. They produce world-wide economic crashes, and world wide warfare mixed with periods of extravagant opulence for a relatively small part of the population.

What I am saying is that the arguments of conservatives against safety nets is highly selective. Bankers, industrialists and a large army and military industrial political complex all benefit from a safety net that ranges from the absolute socialism of the army or political office to the bailouts of bankers and big business. Its just a matter of where you draw the lines.

Eisenhower was a Republican. If anyone suggested returning to the tax and social welfare system operating under his presidency they would be called a socialist. The lines move but the war is not a war with some dastardly other. The war is in our minds. Maybe an amicable separation into red states and blue is the answer - an experiment in what ideas really work. Or we could go on with the current stalemate and watch the house fall down domino style.

Where are the conservatives who talk about personal accountability now? What of accountability for bankers, corporate book cookers, political bribe takers, tax riggers, offshore account gamers, torturers, war criminals, spies without warrants? Why are these people the only ones with a safety net in the world of those who call themselves conservative?

by: jonabark

02-10-2009 @ 4:13pm

The concept of a "safety net", or the concept that many Europeans use proudly of a "welfare state", that sees it's prime purpose as promoting the general welfare of all citizens, as opposed to promoting the power of the wealthy and successful is really just a matter of where the lines are drawn and who is safe and who isn't. Free marketeers historically want contracts enforced, police protection, loose environmental regulations, low taxes, armies that provide cheap access to raw materials, a desperate labor pool etc. None of these things are automatically provided by "freedom". They are the product of some concept of the general welfare, or they are the product of rawer forms or political power. The particular vision we have been living with has been skewed away from the general welfare, away from compassion , away from ecological wisdom, and toward self indulgence, toward violence, toward exploitation, toward greed as good. The presumptions of this system are deeply flawed and have a very long history. They produce world-wide economic crashes, and world wide warfare mixed with periods of extravagant opulence for a relatively small part of the population.

What I am saying is that the arguments of conservatives against safety nets is highly selective. Bankers, industrialists and a large army and military industrial political complex all benefit from a safety net that ranges from the absolute socialism of the army or political office to the bailouts of bankers and big business. Its just a matter of where you draw the lines.

Eisenhower was a Republican. If anyone suggested returning to the tax and social welfare system operating under his presidency they would be called a socialist. The lines move but the war is not a war with some dastardly other. The war is in our minds. Maybe an amicable separation into red states and blue is the answer - an experiment in what ideas really work. Or we could go on with the current stalemate and watch the house fall down domino style.

Where are the conservatives who talk about personal accountability now? What of accountability for bankers, corporate book cookers, political bribe takers, tax riggers, offshore account gamers, torturers, war criminals, spies without warrants? Why are these people the only ones with a safety net in the world of those who call themselves conservative?