Building the Beloved Community: 40 Years After MLK's Poor People's Campaign (by Onleilove Alston)
As I attended Pentecost 2008 I was reminded that Dr. King's Poor People's Campaign is celebrating its 40th anniversary. On Friday, Mary Nelson (Board Member of CCDA) and I facilitated a workshop on "Building the Beloved Community." Building the Beloved Community was one of the central messages of Dr. King's ministry. The Poor People's Campaign of 1968 serves as a tangible example of what the Beloved Community looks like when lived out. In November of 1967 Martin Luther King, Jr. and SCLC met to discuss what direction the movement should go in after the passage of civil rights legislation and the urban riots of the previous summer. SCLC decided to launch the Poor People's Campaign in response to the economic injustice that plagued many Americans of all races. The Poor People's Campaign was to be a widespread campaign of civil disobedience. The poor from across America would come to Washington, D.C. to challenge the government to pass an anti-poverty package that would include a commitment to full employment, a guaranteed annual income and increased construction of low-income housing.
The Poor People's Campaign included poor whites from Appalachia, poor African-Americans from rural and urban areas, poor Hispanics and Native Americans. This group all came together to build Resurrection City which became the headquarters of the campaign. This "city" consisted of shacks built by conference participants and included a school, an arts and cultural program, and a medical clinic staffed by volunteer doctors. In this community African-Americans shared gospel music with Appalachian whites who in turn shared their bluegrass music. This Resurrection City was a place of Beloved Community. Sadly, the goals of the Poor People's Campaign were not accomplished due to the assassinations of Dr. King and Robert F. Kennedy, bad press, and days of constant rain.
The unfinished work of the Poor People's Campaign is now our responsibility. For forty years we have been wandering in the wilderness of economic injustice but if we can unite regardless of our differences to create the Beloved Community we can get to the promised land of economic equality.
One tangible way you can honor the legacy of the Poor People's Campaign is by joining Sojourners in its Vote out Poverty campaign. Participants of Pentecost 2008 are being trained to return home to mobilize their churches, campuses and communities to "Vote out Poverty." Building the Beloved Community is necessary to doing this work.
Onleilove Alston is a native of Brooklyn, New York, and serves Sojourners in the Policy and Organizing department as a Beatitudes Fellow. She is a student in the dual M.Div/MSW program at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University. In NYC she organizes with the Poverty Initiative and New York Faith & Justice.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Didn’t Pres. Johnson declared war on poverty and put programs into motion to create the ‘Great Society’? This sounds like another attempt to establish another big government bureaucracy that is doomed to fail – again. Helping people out or poverty – I have and will continue to do my part one person at a time. But you can’t help people who do not want your help and you can’t fix stupid. In the process of helping others there has to be accountability on their part that big gov’t programs fail to do. To keep throwing money at programs that fail to really help people and only keep them subservient to a program for their livelihood is wrong. So – if in fact you want to help people and hold them accountable for their future – I am interested in the dialog. But if we are just going to throw money at them so that they shut up and not annoy us – I am not interested; we have those programs already in place. In the 80’s our gov’t collected 4 times the amount of money to give every person on the system $10,000 dollar a year and we still had the problem – there has to be another way. (I am not sure what the figures are today – but I don’t think they improved over the years – not sure if I want to know…)
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 16, 2008 2:29 PM
I think there is a problem with the 'what is in it for me' response that says, Not very many people will actually change, and it will cost me money. Vote Out Poverty simply joins people saying that they want their representatives to stand for those who are being shut out of the system and are the 'least of these'. There has been many initiatives in government that have been unsuccessful and a large part of that was not holding our representatives accountable, which is half of the campaign of Vote Out Poverty is about.
I personally took advantage of the WIA act because of a disability I had--but no one person (alone) could have helped me the way that program did. There has to be an infrastructure to help people help themselves. You set up the programs for those who do take advantage--there will never be a 100% success rate--but for those who do make it, that is what it's there for. It's also expensive, and we should be efficient, I strongly believe that. However, it is an investment in human kind.
Also, as a fundraiser I can tell you that non profits need better government systems...the $$$ either comes out of your pocket to non profits (or is should) or it goes to government programming. Non profits are often times bursting at the seams to do their jobs because we have not implemented effective government programs.
I can tell you that all of our efforts to help the poor doesn't equal squat when it comes to all of the $$ government spends on their own housing, dining and other special interests.
There is absolutely no basis to say that we want to throw money at poor people and shut them up. That is so far from what we are trying to do.
Posted by: Jessica Culp | June 16, 2008 3:00 PM
Moderatelad, breaking his vows, returns from self imposed exile.
In the meantime he has learned how to spell, but appears to be just as confused as before.
Posted by: justintime | June 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Posted by: justintime | June 16, 2008 3:38 PM
Yeah - I back. I have been reading and the postings have been very boring and milk-toastish. You want me to go - just say the word. looks like several have left because I was gone - too funny. Still into labeling people I see. (confused - LOL) Thank God somethings never change. (whatever)
Blessings on you and your thoughts and convictions -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 16, 2008 4:00 PM
Posted by: Jessica Culp | June 16, 2008 3:00 PM
There is absolutely no basis to say that we want to throw money at poor people and shut them up. That is so far from what we are trying to do.
I and many of my conservative friends have never been against Gov't programs that offer assistance. It is just that when it becomes a way of life generation after generation - that is wrong. But that is the DFL in MN - they have purchased most of their votes over the past 50+ years.
There is no incentive for getting off welfare as it is a 'use it or loose it' offer. If we could make it a sliding scale from dependence to independence - that would work. Sadly - it isn't.
Let's develope a safety net for people - not a lifestyle.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 16, 2008 4:08 PM
"The poor from across America would come to Washington, D.C. to challenge the government to pass an anti-poverty package that would include a commitment to full employment, a guaranteed annual income and increased construction of low-income housing.
Thank God this did not come to pass!
I was a freshman in college when Dr. King was assassinated, and it just added to the disillusionment with my country that I was experiencing that year. I have always revered Dr. King, but obviously did not know him well enough to know he possessed strong socialist beliefs. How very sad, since that agenda is demonstrably destructive on several levels. He had an excuse we don't have: he hadn't seen the effects of Pres. Johnson's War on Poverty. We have, and we should know better.
This is another example of a disturbing thread on these blogs, including Wallis's own views: the idea that Justice (of any sort, social, or otherwise) is served when the power of government is used to confiscate the wealth of some citizens to distribute to other citizens.
If the taxing were voluntary, e.g., if the wealthy majority decided to tax itself, that would be disturbing enough, but what is really happening is that the "poor majority" is taxing the "rich minority" through the power of 'representative government'.
As if that weren't bad enough, we have people claiming that in doing so, the mission of none other than Christ himself is being accomplished.
I respectfully disagree.
These voices are sanctioning theft in the name of Christ. There is no honor, and certainly no justice in so doing.
Please allow me to present another perspective.
Years ago, I spent a few years in a cockroach-free apartment in a cockroach-infested building. I kept my apartment roach-free by eliminating all sources of food. I got food out to eat a meal, then cleaned up immediately and completely. I even kept my garbage bag tied securely. An occasional roach would pass through on a scouting trip, but that was it.
One day, I had a pivotal insight into human sociology: you can have as many poor people as you're willing to feed. The more free food you make available, the more the numbers of poor will increase to consume it. I called it my "Cockroach theory of welfare programs". All of my friends at that time were fellow Believers, and many of them recoiled at my 'cold-hearted' statements.
In point of fact, however, the existence of populations of poor people provides proof that life has value. Life is worth living, even if the best you can manage is to be poor.
Jesus made the comment that we would always have the poor with us. I read a social-gospel writer recently, who claimed that Jesus was partially quoting from a passage in Deuteronomy, where God told his people to look out for the poor among them, but I beg to differ. I think Jesus was imparting an important truth: there always will be poor people. Period. The reason is, that life is worth living, even if you're poor. Society will always demonstrate bell curves in any measurement, including wealth.
We do the poor no favors by providing them with subsidies of any kind. It only ensures that their numbers will increase: we will have more people living in poverty. There are positive steps we can take to minister to the poor, but they all have to do with training and counseling, and offering opportunity. The Peace Corps is a better model for Christian ministry to the poor than is the homeless shelter or the soup kitchen. The volunteers teach, counsel, guide, and work together with the people they serve, but they distribute neither food, nor money.
My grandfather was an associate pastor at a church in Kansas City in the 1920s. He taught the 5th grade boys Sunday School class. He made an effort to visit the home of every boy in the class, to present the Gospel of Christ to the parents. He once told me that in every home, where the parents accepted Christ, if the family had been living in poverty, they were out of that situation within three months. The Gospel set them free from the grip of poverty.
As the Apostles at the Temple gate had neither silver or gold, so my grandfather also gave what he had, the Gospel of Christ, and it set the captives free.
We err, when we latch on to some passage of Scripture and construct on it an entire worldview. We transgress, when we laud the forced compliance of others with that worldview.
This whole "feed the poor" focus within the Body of Christ is one of several tragically misdirected efforts. The Church is in desparate need of clear teaching, that seems to be in equally desparate short supply.
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 16, 2008 6:07 PM
Re: Onleilove Alston on the Beloved Community. I'm not sure you have that right. The vision for a Beloved Community was not related to the Poor People's campaign. I'm not sure what the "tangible example" is here.
In a speech in 1957 Dr. King referred to the Beloved Commnuity: On the night of the State Ball, standing up talking with some people, Mordecai Johnson called my attention to the fact that Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah was there dancing with the Duchess of Kent. And I said, "Isn’t this something?" Here it is the once-serf, the once-slave, now dancing with the lord on an equal plane." And that is done because there is no bitterness. These two nations will be able to live together and work together because the breaking aloose was through nonviolence and not through violence. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community.
Dr. King's vision of a Beloved Community was articulated in the SCLC vision: The ultimate aim of SCLC is to foster and create the “beloved community” in America where brotherhood is a reality. ...Our ultimate goal is genuine intergroup and interpersonal living and integration. Only through nonviolence can reconciliation and the creation of the beloved community be effected. The international focus on America and her internal problems against the dread prospect of a hot war, demand our seeking this end.
Re the Vote Out Poverty.
Is this really an attempt to continue the Poor People's Campaign? I was 9 forty years ago and the issues today are very different. While I applaud your commitment to end poverty, I challenge you to look at poverty today in the context of a much more complex society today than 1968. Education and information are critical to ending poverty. As are improved government performance (as in our response to Katrina) and efficiency (as in the management of anti-poverty programs).
To Jessica Culp: I think a slogan like "Vote Out Poverty" leaves a lot of questions to the uninformed. Your post has encouraged me to look into it a bit more. Thanks.
Posted by: Stephanie | June 16, 2008 9:31 PM
Once again, Moderatelad, I'm overwhelmed… Words fail me…
Is this truly the Mind that was in Christ Jesus? Where's love, joy, peace? Patience, gentleness, goodness? Where's faithfulness, meekness, temperance– that is, moderation?
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | June 16, 2008 10:38 PM
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | June 16, 2008 10:38 PM
'...Words fail me…'
Please - I have never known words to have failed you. I've known you as very articulate and someone I enjoy reading.
I am not against assisting people. I know that in building community we all prosper. I just refuse to be a part of establishing another gov't program to 'deal' with the issue when all the others have fallen far short of their goals and when every dollar that we give them, less than $0.30 cents makes it to the individual they are 'trying to help'.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 17, 2008 7:57 AM
MOderatelad you bring up a good point, that is; you can't fix stupid. If someone is unable to compete in our economy then the economy owes something to them. I agree, most of the programs tried leave a lot to be desired. I believe that if one lives in an economy that allows one to do well then that person owes the economy a lot more than someone who cannot compete as well. If the successful of the culture do not give back voluntarily then I believe it is the government's responsibility to do it for them.
Posted by: Oak | June 17, 2008 10:43 AM
Are you serious, Oak?
Who is to be the judge of what a successful person ought to give back?
Since we are the government, it sounds as if you are setting yourself up as judge.
I haven't read the Bible cover-to-cover recently, but I don't recall anything in it that supports what you propose. Perhaps you don't care to base your justice on God's Word--you make your appeal to some "higher" source for defining 'justice'.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 17, 2008 11:23 AM
"For forty years we have been wandering in the wilderness of economic injustice..."
What a beautiful choice of words--and yet so tragically true.
We have much to do.
Thank you Onleilove.
Posted by: Lonnie Voth | June 17, 2008 12:11 PM
What is this "Vote Out Poverty" nonsense? Wow, too bad Jesus didn't have Jim Wallis around to educate Him! He (the Son of God) said: "You will ALWAYS have the poor among you" (Matt.26:11 and Mark 14:7). Too bad Jim wasn't there to tell Him how wrong He was -- that we could just rely on the REAL Savior, B.H.Obama, and we can then "vote out" poverty.
What else can we just "vote out"? War? Pollution? How about high gas prices?
Posted by: Al N | June 17, 2008 1:26 PM
Never in Australia, nor in Europe, have I ever heard taxation referred to as theft or confiscation. Where does that peculiarly US line of thought come from?
Have to agree with Moderatelad though. There is a place for govt programs but they need to be geared towards the development of independence not towards fulfilling all needs. So a committment to full employment and a living wage is a good thing, but a commitment to an unearnt wage is dangerous.
In one of the aboriginal communities I worked there used to be full employment (while the mission ran it). Then after the govt assumed responsibility the multiple industries failed one after the other and instead of being rebuilt they were replaced with aditional funding, resulting in zero real employment (some work for aid schemes are in place - but no real industry).
Australia currently has great govt programs in place focussed upon supporting people with disabilities to find employment at a level which they can manage. Their wages are supplemented by govt where they are incapable of working full hours or of managing full duties. It is a great example of where govt can build competence and independence.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | June 17, 2008 11:51 PM
Trent:
Excellent question, regarding taxation as theft.
While there is a flat-tax (%) movement, few here truly object to a progressive income tax, insofar as the funds collected are used for the common good--defense, science, infrastructure, etc.
The idea of taxes as theft is linked directly, at least for me, to the programs of tax-funded personal subsidy, which are nothing more than a redistribution of income. (While the use of the term 'income redistribution' may sound like the words of a critic, I first heard the phrase in a speech made by Rev. Jackson at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, when he was calling for more of it.)
A good source for a learned discussion of the topic is Dr. Walter Williams, emeritus member of the faculty at George Mason University. I have heard him speak on the subject. Another possible source is Thomas Sowell, although I have not seen him address this topic, I suspect he agrees with Williams.
Your story--first hand, no less--about the inability of the government to manage a good program among the Aborigines should give us pause. Some of us use an expression, "We're from the government, and we're here to help," when we have a tough problem to solve, and the last thing we want is government assistance.
For example, anyone who has had to deal with Medicare, and who honestly appraises it, has all the information he/she needs to oppose expanding the program to include all Americans. It is both costly, and ineffective.
Thanks for your question.
Be Blessed--mind if I copy? I like your close.
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 6:51 AM
SO - it is now official, I am unemployed as of July 1 and I guess that makes me poor. Unemployment - will not even cover my house payment. Prospects for a job in education - not good. Becauses the Dems that control congress in my state refuse to fund education the way they tell the people that they do. Cuts are hitting everyone in education and class sizes are going up. (BUT - not in EDINA - you got to love those LL's) So - I will be loosing my availability to meet with you at work and I will more than likely be cancelling my innernet at home to save money. Looking for a FT job and will be hopefully working temp jobs so that we have food on the table. Interesting - I have been paying my taxes for years and paying for another family somewhere in MN so they don't have to have a job. They can get money for almost anything they want because they are already on the system and have no intention of getting off. I have been supporting the system and now looking for another job so that I can continue to support the system. But there is no money for me outside of unemployment. Food Stamps - hardship funds - when I talked to the state about my bills they told me that I would have to cut or discontinue service. Had I been on the 'system' there are programs in place where the state would pay for them.
I believe that we should all quit our jobs, sell our houses, run up our credit cards, sit on our backsides and let the state pay for all of us. Too bad that there is not a safety net that would assist me in maintaining my lifestyle for a few months till I find a new job and get back to supporting the 'system'.
Some of you - please don't think that this is the ramblings of an angry conservative white guy - it is not. I will find something and God has always provided. Just interesting that if you are in the 'system' - they will take care of you and never demean or disrespect you for not having a job. Be one that supports the system and fall on hard times - you are a slug and need to get off your backside stop whinning and get back to supporting the 'system'.
Hears to a brighter future -
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 18, 2008 8:33 AM
Moderatelad:
You have my prayers.
I was 'cut from the team' in 2002, after 12 years.
One of the most spectacular episodes of God providing for my needs occurred over the next several months. May He amaze you with his care.
Be blessed.
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 8:54 AM
David,
What do you think about corporate welfare? Do you consider that theft? If so then why don't you call an end to that?
I don't consider it theft, never have, I don't mind my money going to the less fortunate, whether they get off of it or not. I am far more concerned with making sure people can eat. It's really a survival issue.
It's not limited to that but it has to start somewhere and right now that's where it begins for me.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 18, 2008 12:13 PM
Payshun:
Please define 'corporate welfare' and give me an example, so I can respond to it. I have heard the term thrown out by various politicians, and some members of the media, but have no idea what it refers to, except that it's something the people who use the term don't like.
Generosity is a good thing, and I am all for it. I've even been known to practice it myself. It's best when it is practiced directly, person-to-person. It's still really good when it is a voluntary contribution to an organization the giver knows and trusts.
However, LEGISLATED GENEROSITY is not generosity, it is confiscation by force of law. In our political system, it is possible for a majority to vote politicians into office, who promise to "tax the rich" and "distribute that wealth to the poor". As things stand, with the top 10% of taxpayers paying 70% of the taxes (as of 2005, per IRS website), that is like 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
It may be LEGAL, that is defined within our system of government, but it is not JUST. (I reject the notion that the laws of a nation DEFINE justice. I suspect you do, too.)
What bothers me about what you propose, is not that you want to see the hungry fed, but that you believe that your conviction about its importance justifies opening my purse by force of law to make it happen.
Be blessed.
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 1:32 PM
I can't believe all of this talk, putting down and stereotyping poor people--it is absolutely disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
There are people who will be poor and will stay poor--and who are you to act so righteous? For those, like myself, who did have to live off of the system for a short period of time, let me just share a few words.
Being in the system is enough to make you want to get out of the system. When you go to get help, they treat you like a piece of crap, and that is what I read that you agree with them.
This is an opportunity, people, to help even when you don't think people deserve it. Get this--the sooner you do, the better--none of us deserve the life the Lord has given us. From an honest individual to another I know it's frustrating that people don't just "do what they are supposed to do" Get over it and do what you are called to do. Love one another.
Posted by: Jessica Culp | June 18, 2008 6:12 PM
Was it Solomon who wrote that a fool and his money are soon parted?
If I give my money to a fool, what does that make me?
This is a broader issue than can be covered by the simple, "Love one another", with the implied message of, "and quit complaining".
My wife and I struggle with the fact that our children are not always good stewards of what they have, then they want us to bail them out, when they had plenty to start with.
Our love for our children REQUIRES us to hold them accountable for their actions, so that they will grow up to be good stewards and responsible citizens. Why would I practice that with my children, then re-define the practice of love to be something completely different when I seek to love someone else?
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 6:34 PM
"However, LEGISLATED GENEROSITY is not generosity, it is confiscation by force of law."
So I am assuming that you are against all forms of taxes then? Would that be fair?
"It may be LEGAL, that is defined within our system of government, but it is not JUST. (I reject the notion that the laws of a nation DEFINE justice. I suspect you do, too.)"
I reject some of it, not all. Justice can be the laws of a nation ie protecting children from harsh labor practices, no discrimination by race... So there are really positive examples of justice being practiced by this nation.
"What bothers me about what you propose, is not that you want to see the hungry fed, but that you believe that your conviction about its importance justifies opening my purse by force of law to make it happen."
What you espouse bothers me on many levels as well. First I am bothered by the belief that "your" purse is your own. There is nothing that you "own" if you believe in Jesus, it's all his. In other words everything we "own" belongs to God even our lives.
I have a hard time understanding how greed is justified anywhere in scripture in the name of protecting your purse. If you "own" nothing then why does it matter what God does with "your" money? Should not you be focusing more on the fact that the poor are fed than the money gone from your purse?
As for corporate welfare think about the subsidies big pharma, big oil and other corporations receive. You can read more about that here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
May God bless and increase your house.
p
Posted by: Payshun | June 18, 2008 6:44 PM
I do understanding wanting your money to go towards things that "work". I think we all want to be responsible and want the government to do so as well--wouldn't you agree? No one wants to flush their money down the toilet--God wouldn't want that.
I also think that Voting Out Poverty is a very good thing, not because I think we should tax the crap out of everybody and put the rich in the poorhouse....the point of it all is talking with whoever you want to elect and let them know that poverty is important to you. Maybe you feel it costs you too much on the end of the spectrum and maybe you are more interested in a proactive approach. I think a lot of us would agree with that, too. We all care about the poor for different reasons.
For example, I work at a Children's Home that takes care of kids who have severe emotional and behavior problems--most of the time due to their parents severe abuse. Some people give because their hearts break, others don't want to have to pay for their jail bill? Does it matter why they give? I'd like to say that I am more moved by those touchy type, but the truth is we need their support regardless.
My concern is this--when Jesus said to those people--I was hungry and you fed me, and we all know that story, how could we ever possibly know (or get too caught up in) how he chose to appear?
Posted by: Jessica Culp | June 18, 2008 7:52 PM
This has the makings of a productive exchange of ideas and thinking.
First, I must respond to Payshun.
Legislated generosity.
There's nothing in what I've written to suggest that I am opposed to all taxes. The list of governmental expenses that directly benefit the nation begins in the Constitution and has had a handful of reasonable additions to it. For these expenses, I am willing to put up with the inevitable inefficiencies of governmental programs, and pony up my share of tax dollars to pay for them.
Here's what I'm against: ALL of the programs that at their basis redistribute income, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The Robin Hood programs. These are demonstrably unjust, not to mention generally detrimental to their nominal beneficiaries.
It is NOT GREED to protest unjust taxes. Heavens. I know what greed is, and I can give you examples.
It is also not hard-hearted to criticize foolish uses of public funds.
Before God, I lay no claim of ownership on what I have been entrusted. However, before the Federal government, I most certainly make claims of ownership.
I think what it comes down to is this: it seems that you are attributing the actions of the Federal government to God, when those actions involve Robin Hood programs.
Is that true?
I am concerned that you've lost sight of the fact that our government is a secular institution, that it is largely run by people known for their corruption, and that when it occasionally does something right, it is almost by accident, and is scarcely repeated, let alone sustained.
Iron sharpens iron!
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 9:53 PM
Jessica:
First of all, thank you for telling us of your work with disturbed children. My heart goes out to you, and to them.
I'm glad to see you think taxes should have some limits, and that you favor effective programs. Those are fundamental concerns that I have, too.
There is a place for government programs to address poverty. I am pretty well convinced, however, that the best programs would look more like Peace Corps operations than like housing and other direct subsidies. The State has a vested interest in increasing the productivity of its citizens. Programs that help people move themselves from dependence to independence and to taxpayer could, in theory, pay for themselves.
My issue--and it's consistent through all my posts--is not with the Lord's reminder to be generous to the needy. My issue is with levying taxes to do so. I reject the claim that when it does so, our government is doing God's work. That would be news to the politicians, for sure: they just thought they were buying votes!
The undoing of our republic may lie in the poor majority--10% of taxpayers pay 70% of taxes--voting for politicians who promise to raise taxes on the rich and distribute the money to the poor. We have already headed down that path, and have the mechanism to do so in place: tax credits.
Be blessed.
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 18, 2008 10:49 PM
Posted by: Jessica Culp | June 18, 2008 6:12 PM
Maybe you miss the 'some not all' in my posting. As for assistance for me in MN - there is very little. If I am willing to default on my house and cars - live off my credit cards till they are closed, then the state might come to my assistance. I just need a safety net till I find another job so that I can continue to support the system - there is very little, almost none. This is where it is wrong.
My Mom is in an assisted living facility and I have POA because she has alzeimers. I am working to make what she gets from her retirement, SS and a few small investments pay for the services she needs. The neighbor that lived across the street for 40+ years is in another facility. She work the system almost all her life so that she did not have to work. The state paid for all the upgrades to her house where everyone else on the block saved their money to put a new roof on the house. She has a better standard of living than my Mom and did not pay into the system for over 47 years like my Mom did. My Dad retired and collected 9 SS checks and one death benefit check for the 54 years that he paid into the system. Because of mismanagement of the SS by 40+ years of a Dem controled Congress - the system is going bandrupt. I will underwrite anyone that has conditions beyond their control, I am getting sick and tired of those that work the system and get the bigger end of the stick than those that paid their dues.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 19, 2008 9:12 AM
>>I will underwrite anyone that has conditions beyond their control, I am getting sick and tired of those that work the system and get the bigger end of the stick than those that paid their dues.
Agree wholheartedly. As it says in the Old Testiment, work or die.
Posted by: proudnascarfan | June 19, 2008 10:49 AM
"As it says in the Old Testiment, work or die."
I'm not familiar with that passage, although there's certainly a LOT in Proverbs about dilligence, wisdom, and folly--not to mention praise for hard work.
Paul told one group that if anyone wouldn't work, then he shouldn't eat.
The message of the Bible is bigger and more far-reaching than we can grasp if we build our worldview on one verse. It is true, we are called to give freely of the resources we are responsible for to assist the needy. But we are also admonished to not tolerate sloth. We must accept both teachings, and prayerfully determine our course of action, as well as what we are going to teach others.
It seems to me that providing anyone with a livelihood--house, food, money--goes 'way beyond Bible-based assistance.
At the same time, if that's how you believe you should use the resources entrusted to your care, be my guest. Just, please, don't FORCE me to do the same...which is my kick against government Robin Hood programs.
Be blessed.
Posted by: david of fox lake | June 19, 2008 1:16 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?