Some might say that this is the worst possible time to have a Mobilization to End Poverty. An elder of a church I served once told me, "You can tell a lot about a person by looking at their checkbook register
Well, I certainly don't have all the answers, but my first thoughts are to ask the following:
"Why is losing a job a bad thing?"
"Why is a painful experience a bad thing?"
"What are the more long-term consequences of propping up business that are failing?"
"Are the short-term gains of propping up businesses and/or persons w/o jobs better than the long-term gains of getting through the crisis quickly but ending up with a more sustainable economy in the long run?"
"Are there more efficient and sustainable ways to eliminate the surplus of labor?"
Economies are not fixed, they are dynamic, and as time passes, people want/need/demand different things. When I speak of poor stewardship, I'm talking about scarce resources. If people do not want or cannot afford Starbucks products, the resources that were previously going to use at Starbucks are more necessary elsewhere; this is the case because we do not have an unlimited number of resources. If I were Starbucks, I would look for ways to more efficiently use those resources.
Sadly, as much as I would like to think bad businesses should just take their lumps and suffer the consequences of poor management, they don't suffer in a vacuum. If they did, I'd totally agree that government intervention is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, suffer from their ineptitude through no fault of their own. These workers did the right things--they worked hard, they had jobs. They lost them due to the poor management of their bosses.
So what is the alternative to doing nothing? To providing corporate welfare? The alternative, unless we want massive suffering on our hands, is individual welfare. Either way, we pay for it--we either pay by bailing out the corporations, or we pay by bailing out individuals through the form of unemployment insurance or welfare.
60 minutes did a story about cancer patients in Las Vegas who had lost their jobs and thus their insurance. The only recourse they had for treatment then was to fall back on publicly-funded hospitals. Meanwhile, publicly-funded hospitals have suffered huge cutbacks and can no longer provide those services. So, the patients get no treatment, which is, essentially, a death sentence. Or, possibly they eventually receive care when they are poor enough to obtain the care that the poorest among us get, but by then the cancer has not only progressed past treatment, but it is far more costly treatment than it was before.
So it is very difficult to just simply say that businesses should fail because they are poor businesses and they deserve it. People's lives are at stake, in some cases literally. And I should also point out that not all businesses fail due to incompetent practices. Some fail because the economy itself fails. Gambling in Nevada is a huge business that is run quite well. And it is failing because Nevada has lost a good chunk of their tourism dollars. Starbucks is a fantastic business model but it is failing because people can't afford to buy expensive coffee drinks anymore.
So with all that in mind, how do you not bail out bad businesses while at the same time avoiding the effects the loss of those businesses have on the thousands of peripheral businesses that rely on their success?
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
Well, I certainly don't have all the answers, but my first thoughts are to ask the following:
"Why is losing a job a bad thing?"
"Why is a painful experience a bad thing?"
"What are the more long-term consequences of propping up business that are failing?"
"Are the short-term gains of propping up businesses and/or persons w/o jobs better than the long-term gains of getting through the crisis quickly but ending up with a more sustainable economy in the long run?"
"Are there more efficient and sustainable ways to eliminate the surplus of labor?"
Economies are not fixed, they are dynamic, and as time passes, people want/need/demand different things. When I speak of poor stewardship, I'm talking about scarce resources. If people do not want or cannot afford Starbucks products, the resources that were previously going to use at Starbucks are more necessary elsewhere; this is the case because we do not have an unlimited number of resources. If I were Starbucks, I would look for ways to more efficiently use those resources.
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
"You can also tell a lot about a nation by its budget. Our national budget is a moral document that should reflect our best values and priorities."
And by most standards, the national budget is a disgrace. Some may think it is a disgrace that we're not spending enough on selected services and too much on other items; others undoubtedly will look at the debt the children and grandchildren of this country will inherit. Borrowing money you have no ability to repay is also a moral issue.
What I want to know is where were all these fiscal conservatives when George Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor.
When Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and a bright fiscal future. The CBO, the nonpartisan government agency responsible for estimating future expenditures and revenues, projected a cumulative budget surplus of about $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011, if the country stayed on track-which of course it did not. What happened instead was that the administration successfully pushed for not only two rounds of massive, inequitable tax cuts but also a 59 percent surge in government spending.
And what did all of that profligate spending buy us? Two wars, over 4,000 American casualties, tens of thousands of dead in Iraq, and alienation from the rest of the world.
I pray that Mr. Obama can redirect our priorities and restore respect to America in the world.
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
"You can also tell a lot about a nation by its budget. Our national budget is a moral document that should reflect our best values and priorities."
And by most standards, the national budget is a disgrace. Some may think it is a disgrace that we're not spending enough on selected services and too much on other items; others undoubtedly will look at the debt the children and grandchildren of this country will inherit. Borrowing money you have no ability to repay is also a moral issue.
"When the body that is human community is wounded, God rushes to those places to bring healing. In the wounded places, in the vulnerable places, where children die of treatable disease, where hope dies for lack of jobs and education and health care, that is where God is at work to bring healing. That is where we need to be, too."
This is an incredible statement, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. But where is the healing power in running massive deficits, enslaving our children with huge amounts of debt, or inflating the money supply and hypocritically doing exactly what the previous administration was criticized (rightfully) for? Where is healing in a system that bails out poorly managed business who are poorly stewarded scarce resources in the economy? Where is the healing in driving up prices of college education and health care with policies that attack only the symptoms?
Perhaps we should go back and read President Harding's approach to the depression we had in 1920 (the one nobody remembers because it was short-lived because the government didn't intervene).
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
What I want to know is where were all these fiscal conservatives when George Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor.
When Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and a bright fiscal future. The CBO, the nonpartisan government agency responsible for estimating future expenditures and revenues, projected a cumulative budget surplus of about $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011, if the country stayed on track-which of course it did not. What happened instead was that the administration successfully pushed for not only two rounds of massive, inequitable tax cuts but also a 59 percent surge in government spending.
And what did all of that profligate spending buy us? Two wars, over 4,000 American casualties, tens of thousands of dead in Iraq, and alienation from the rest of the world.
I pray that Mr. Obama can redirect our priorities and restore respect to America in the world.
"When the body that is human community is wounded, God rushes to those places to bring healing. In the wounded places, in the vulnerable places, where children die of treatable disease, where hope dies for lack of jobs and education and health care, that is where God is at work to bring healing. That is where we need to be, too."
This is an incredible statement, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. But where is the healing power in running massive deficits, enslaving our children with huge amounts of debt, or inflating the money supply and hypocritically doing exactly what the previous administration was criticized (rightfully) for? Where is healing in a system that bails out poorly managed business who are poorly stewarded scarce resources in the economy? Where is the healing in driving up prices of college education and health care with policies that attack only the symptoms?
Perhaps we should go back and read President Harding's approach to the depression we had in 1920 (the one nobody remembers because it was short-lived because the government didn't intervene).
Sadly, as much as I would like to think bad businesses should just take their lumps and suffer the consequences of poor management, they don't suffer in a vacuum. If they did, I'd totally agree that government intervention is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, suffer from their ineptitude through no fault of their own. These workers did the right things--they worked hard, they had jobs. They lost them due to the poor management of their bosses.
So what is the alternative to doing nothing? To providing corporate welfare? The alternative, unless we want massive suffering on our hands, is individual welfare. Either way, we pay for it--we either pay by bailing out the corporations, or we pay by bailing out individuals through the form of unemployment insurance or welfare.
60 minutes did a story about cancer patients in Las Vegas who had lost their jobs and thus their insurance. The only recourse they had for treatment then was to fall back on publicly-funded hospitals. Meanwhile, publicly-funded hospitals have suffered huge cutbacks and can no longer provide those services. So, the patients get no treatment, which is, essentially, a death sentence. Or, possibly they eventually receive care when they are poor enough to obtain the care that the poorest among us get, but by then the cancer has not only progressed past treatment, but it is far more costly treatment than it was before.
So it is very difficult to just simply say that businesses should fail because they are poor businesses and they deserve it. People's lives are at stake, in some cases literally. And I should also point out that not all businesses fail due to incompetent practices. Some fail because the economy itself fails. Gambling in Nevada is a huge business that is run quite well. And it is failing because Nevada has lost a good chunk of their tourism dollars. Starbucks is a fantastic business model but it is failing because people can't afford to buy expensive coffee drinks anymore.
So with all that in mind, how do you not bail out bad businesses while at the same time avoiding the effects the loss of those businesses have on the thousands of peripheral businesses that rely on their success?
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
"You can also tell a lot about a nation by its budget. Our national budget is a moral document that should reflect our best values and priorities."
And by most standards, the national budget is a disgrace. Some may think it is a disgrace that we're not spending enough on selected services and too much on other items; others undoubtedly will look at the debt the children and grandchildren of this country will inherit. Borrowing money you have no ability to repay is also a moral issue.
"You can also tell a lot about a nation by its budget. Our national budget is a moral document that should reflect our best values and priorities."
And by most standards, the national budget is a disgrace. Some may think it is a disgrace that we're not spending enough on selected services and too much on other items; others undoubtedly will look at the debt the children and grandchildren of this country will inherit. Borrowing money you have no ability to repay is also a moral issue.
What I want to know is where were all these fiscal conservatives when George Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor.
When Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and a bright fiscal future. The CBO, the nonpartisan government agency responsible for estimating future expenditures and revenues, projected a cumulative budget surplus of about $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011, if the country stayed on track-which of course it did not. What happened instead was that the administration successfully pushed for not only two rounds of massive, inequitable tax cuts but also a 59 percent surge in government spending.
And what did all of that profligate spending buy us? Two wars, over 4,000 American casualties, tens of thousands of dead in Iraq, and alienation from the rest of the world.
I pray that Mr. Obama can redirect our priorities and restore respect to America in the world.
What I want to know is where were all these fiscal conservatives when George Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor.
When Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and a bright fiscal future. The CBO, the nonpartisan government agency responsible for estimating future expenditures and revenues, projected a cumulative budget surplus of about $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011, if the country stayed on track-which of course it did not. What happened instead was that the administration successfully pushed for not only two rounds of massive, inequitable tax cuts but also a 59 percent surge in government spending.
And what did all of that profligate spending buy us? Two wars, over 4,000 American casualties, tens of thousands of dead in Iraq, and alienation from the rest of the world.
I pray that Mr. Obama can redirect our priorities and restore respect to America in the world.
"When the body that is human community is wounded, God rushes to those places to bring healing. In the wounded places, in the vulnerable places, where children die of treatable disease, where hope dies for lack of jobs and education and health care, that is where God is at work to bring healing. That is where we need to be, too."
This is an incredible statement, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. But where is the healing power in running massive deficits, enslaving our children with huge amounts of debt, or inflating the money supply and hypocritically doing exactly what the previous administration was criticized (rightfully) for? Where is healing in a system that bails out poorly managed business who are poorly stewarded scarce resources in the economy? Where is the healing in driving up prices of college education and health care with policies that attack only the symptoms?
Perhaps we should go back and read President Harding's approach to the depression we had in 1920 (the one nobody remembers because it was short-lived because the government didn't intervene).
"When the body that is human community is wounded, God rushes to those places to bring healing. In the wounded places, in the vulnerable places, where children die of treatable disease, where hope dies for lack of jobs and education and health care, that is where God is at work to bring healing. That is where we need to be, too."
This is an incredible statement, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. But where is the healing power in running massive deficits, enslaving our children with huge amounts of debt, or inflating the money supply and hypocritically doing exactly what the previous administration was criticized (rightfully) for? Where is healing in a system that bails out poorly managed business who are poorly stewarded scarce resources in the economy? Where is the healing in driving up prices of college education and health care with policies that attack only the symptoms?
Perhaps we should go back and read President Harding's approach to the depression we had in 1920 (the one nobody remembers because it was short-lived because the government didn't intervene).
Sadly, as much as I would like to think bad businesses should just take their lumps and suffer the consequences of poor management, they don't suffer in a vacuum. If they did, I'd totally agree that government intervention is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, suffer from their ineptitude through no fault of their own. These workers did the right things--they worked hard, they had jobs. They lost them due to the poor management of their bosses.
So what is the alternative to doing nothing? To providing corporate welfare? The alternative, unless we want massive suffering on our hands, is individual welfare. Either way, we pay for it--we either pay by bailing out the corporations, or we pay by bailing out individuals through the form of unemployment insurance or welfare.
60 minutes did a story about cancer patients in Las Vegas who had lost their jobs and thus their insurance. The only recourse they had for treatment then was to fall back on publicly-funded hospitals. Meanwhile, publicly-funded hospitals have suffered huge cutbacks and can no longer provide those services. So, the patients get no treatment, which is, essentially, a death sentence. Or, possibly they eventually receive care when they are poor enough to obtain the care that the poorest among us get, but by then the cancer has not only progressed past treatment, but it is far more costly treatment than it was before.
So it is very difficult to just simply say that businesses should fail because they are poor businesses and they deserve it. People's lives are at stake, in some cases literally. And I should also point out that not all businesses fail due to incompetent practices. Some fail because the economy itself fails. Gambling in Nevada is a huge business that is run quite well. And it is failing because Nevada has lost a good chunk of their tourism dollars. Starbucks is a fantastic business model but it is failing because people can't afford to buy expensive coffee drinks anymore.
So with all that in mind, how do you not bail out bad businesses while at the same time avoiding the effects the loss of those businesses have on the thousands of peripheral businesses that rely on their success?
Well, I certainly don't have all the answers, but my first thoughts are to ask the following:
"Why is losing a job a bad thing?"
"Why is a painful experience a bad thing?"
"What are the more long-term consequences of propping up business that are failing?"
"Are the short-term gains of propping up businesses and/or persons w/o jobs better than the long-term gains of getting through the crisis quickly but ending up with a more sustainable economy in the long run?"
"Are there more efficient and sustainable ways to eliminate the surplus of labor?"
Economies are not fixed, they are dynamic, and as time passes, people want/need/demand different things. When I speak of poor stewardship, I'm talking about scarce resources. If people do not want or cannot afford Starbucks products, the resources that were previously going to use at Starbucks are more necessary elsewhere; this is the case because we do not have an unlimited number of resources. If I were Starbucks, I would look for ways to more efficiently use those resources.
Well, I certainly don't have all the answers, but my first thoughts are to ask the following:
"Why is losing a job a bad thing?"
"Why is a painful experience a bad thing?"
"What are the more long-term consequences of propping up business that are failing?"
"Are the short-term gains of propping up businesses and/or persons w/o jobs better than the long-term gains of getting through the crisis quickly but ending up with a more sustainable economy in the long run?"
"Are there more efficient and sustainable ways to eliminate the surplus of labor?"
Economies are not fixed, they are dynamic, and as time passes, people want/need/demand different things. When I speak of poor stewardship, I'm talking about scarce resources. If people do not want or cannot afford Starbucks products, the resources that were previously going to use at Starbucks are more necessary elsewhere; this is the case because we do not have an unlimited number of resources. If I were Starbucks, I would look for ways to more efficiently use those resources.
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
If indeed it is one of the best means of getting out of poverty, why are most people on the Left normally on the side of enslaving those in poverty by keeping them in schools that don't work, leaving the poor with no choice but to be "stuck" in such a school? Obama seems to be open to new ideas, but so far not much has changed (though in fairness there hasn't been a lot of time for that yet). The D.C. Voucher program has been successful and given an education at 25% the cost of a government school education. I'm not advocating vouchers are the ultimate solution, but giving the power back to the parents can be one excellent way of allowing them to pursue their own ends. Otherwise only the wealthy have the choice to send their kids to whatever school they want.
Sadly, as much as I would like to think bad businesses should just take their lumps and suffer the consequences of poor management, they don't suffer in a vacuum. If they did, I'd totally agree that government intervention is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, suffer from their ineptitude through no fault of their own. These workers did the right things--they worked hard, they had jobs. They lost them due to the poor management of their bosses.
So what is the alternative to doing nothing? To providing corporate welfare? The alternative, unless we want massive suffering on our hands, is individual welfare. Either way, we pay for it--we either pay by bailing out the corporations, or we pay by bailing out individuals through the form of unemployment insurance or welfare.
60 minutes did a story about cancer patients in Las Vegas who had lost their jobs and thus their insurance. The only recourse they had for treatment then was to fall back on publicly-funded hospitals. Meanwhile, publicly-funded hospitals have suffered huge cutbacks and can no longer provide those services. So, the patients get no treatment, which is, essentially, a death sentence. Or, possibly they eventually receive care when they are poor enough to obtain the care that the poorest among us get, but by then the cancer has not only progressed past treatment, but it is far more costly treatment than it was before.
So it is very difficult to just simply say that businesses should fail because they are poor businesses and they deserve it. People's lives are at stake, in some cases literally. And I should also point out that not all businesses fail due to incompetent practices. Some fail because the economy itself fails. Gambling in Nevada is a huge business that is run quite well. And it is failing because Nevada has lost a good chunk of their tourism dollars. Starbucks is a fantastic business model but it is failing because people can't afford to buy expensive coffee drinks anymore.
So with all that in mind, how do you not bail out bad businesses while at the same time avoiding the effects the loss of those businesses have on the thousands of peripheral businesses that rely on their success?
