I had an interesting conversation with a college Dean recently. They stated that though they believe in God, have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, and DO attend church, they do NOT believe in religion in America as it is presented today.
They said that they have discovered that many Christians today take the attitude of, "We don't have to help poor people because they aren't trying," and that they close their eyes to the fact that the reality is very often that the poor people have been pushed down so many times that they are too tired to stand up again.
I grew up hearing certain people say things like Tim said. Things like, "They are poor because they don't want to work." Yet, in examining situations, I often find the following:
Working 40 hours a week at minimum wage earns a GROSS pay of 220 a week. Mulitple that times 52 weeks, with no days off, and you still have a gross income of $11,440. Now, forget "taxes", but assume they must pay social security at least.
Now, imagine trying to pay rent, buy clothing, buying a bus ticket to get to and from work, and buying food off less than $10,000 a year that is "net" pay.
You can't afford medical insurance, doctors or even an aspirin. You can't afford meat half the time, so you live on beans.
You ask for supplements to your income, so you can work and still survive, and you're told no. That welfare and unemployment are people who "NEED" it and that if you have a job, you don't "NEED" it.
So you live like some refugee in a third world country, barely existing.
Then you meet the neighbor. He gave up. Just quit trying, and he was given rent reductions, food stamps, insurance and medical care, dental care, and the government paid for his baby sitter.
He wanted to work, but he did the math. His family lived better with him NOT working than they did while they were working, because there is no assitance for the working poor.
By the way. MOST of the poor in America ARE working poor.
57% of evacuees may not even want to return to New Orleans
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Sep 17, 2005.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
I am not surprised by what you write, Tim.
I understand how you feel , but I can't write off all the evacuees. What you say is undoubtably going to turn out to be at least partially true, but we have to see if they take advantage of the opportunity to change.
God bless you and your family. -
Joseph, I think Dr. Tim and Blackbird are right on here. Those (the vast majority) that have chosen to live in these areas for generations have absolutely no will to raise themselves above anything. They simply want governmental guarantees for their food, shelter and transportation, oh yes for their right to make another generation of welfare recipients also. And they will blindly vote the Democratic ticket because the dem's were the ones vocalizing their spoils.
The federal govt. jumping in with checkbook in hand is horrible. It's just another welfare redistribution. But at this point there is no viable alternative. -
Why not relocate all that will go, to Nevada, where sin is rampant and legal. And use the $200K that's being bandied about to build each family a 3 bedroom 1000 ft2 house with heat pump. The leftover cash could be invested in mutual funds to help offset the costs of their ongoing welfare payments.
-
2. It is illogical to think that the second most impoverished large city in the USA is all because those who live in poverty are lazy. One has to look at the policies of the local government which keep them down. This does not mean that there is not some who are lazy...but certainly not on this level. You are all simply wrong on this. It is much more likely that there are not as many opportunities in education and for jobs as there are in other places.
3. It is an absolute waste of money to rebuild a city that is 10 feet under sea level, and that almost 60% of its population may not even return. It would, IMO, make much more sense to focus our efforts on relocating the hundreds of thousands of evacuees who do not wish to go back to that rotten cesspool. If 43% want to rebuild the city so that it will be destroyed again next time, let them use their own money to do so.
Joseph Botwinick -
-
-
The hardest working people I ever met in my life were poor people.
And the evacuees that we got in our town don't fit the description that Dr. Tim gave. The two most frequently asked questions were, "Can you help me find my family," and "Can you help me find work?" -
I'm sure that among the impoverished there are those who want to work and those who don't. I have no idea what the percentage is in this case. I can only offer the opinion as a former longtime resident of Louisiana that N.O. was a great place to visit before Katrina but never a great place to live (for many reasons). I wouldn't blame anyone who didn't want to return there.
-
Bro. Dave,
Those are nice emotional sentiment...but have no basis in fact. The facts are that:
1. Little Rock is not 10 feet below sea level on the Gulf Coast.
2. Little Rock does not have the second highest poverty rate in America for a large city.
3. Little Rock prepares for its natural disasters, as few as they are and as non-severe as they are. You see...we aren't expecting a hurricane anytime soon. Yes we get tornadoes...but in comparison, the damage is fairly minimal and don't take 200 billion our president has proposed to rebuild.
4. My local government doesn't sit on their hands when faced with the reality of what is going to happen...especially when they know in advanced that it is coming as they did down South.
5. Little Rock does not have dead bodies and all kinds of nasty stuff I won't mention floating through the middle of town.
New Orleans is a much bigger rotten cesspool than Little Rock...and is not worth 200 billion dollars rebuilding when 57% of the people who lived there may not even want to go back and when it is just going to be destroyed again the next time they get a big hurricane.
Meanwhile,
Almost 60% of the NO population will get very minimal help in relocating and having a better life elsewhere since they do not want to go back. Our focus should be on relocating these people and helping them build a better life in a better place than rebuilding the rotten cesspool which is just going to be destroyed again.
Joseph Botwinick
[ September 18, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Joseph_Botwinick ] -
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Bro. Dave,
it is just going to be destroyed again the next time they get a big hurricane.
Our focus should be on relocating these people and helping them build a better life in a better place than rebuilding the rotten cesspool which is just going to be destroyed again.
Joseph BotwinickClick to expand...
This link will touch your heart far beyond KenH's little Katrina pet link -
No problem with them rebuilding if that is what they want to do. They can do it with their own money though.
Joseph Botwinick -
Luter's church probably will do it with their own money----at least if I were Pastor there I would!! No doubt the church had insurance---but I'm hearing crazy reports than many establishments in the area did not carry flood insurance---they carried wind damage insurance--but I understand that little of the damage was actually caused by wind---though we did get sustained 115mph wind---2 1/2 hours north of New Orleans!!!
-
I figure they will also, along with some help from the State and National Convention as they should do.
Joseph Botwinick -
This thread is on page three and will be closed no earlier than 0800 EDT today.
-
Originally posted by C4K:
This thread is on page three and will be closed no earlier than 0800 EDT today.Click to expand...
Page 2 of 2