FrontPageMagazine.com | Robert Rector | August 28, 2007
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America’s “poor” live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
- Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
. . . more
When will the church wake up to the needs of the poor? I don’t mean the poor on the other side of the world or the poor in their church–the poor in their city and in their neighborhoods. Our obligation is to serve, feed and clothe the poor. The modern American church does not do a good job at this.
Norman Geisler’s new book ‘Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely About Right and Wrong’ on ethics has a great chapter on economic injustice. It should be a must read for all pastors–when was the last time you heard a sermon on ministering to the poor?
Here’s the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Neighbor-Thinking-Wisely/dp/1581349459/ref=sr_1_1/102-2085712-9684969?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188422381&sr=8-1
I think that’s harsh and unfair. First,there are many social services agencies that could not operate without the assistance of local churches. I volunteered at two homeless shelters in Chicago during the nineties and both used the basements of various church parishes as their primary emergency shelters. My current Priest, a die-hard Republican, serves on the board of the local Habitat for Humanity chapter and has stood on a street corner in an area where homeless people congregate, passing out food, clothing and other supplies.
In his book “Bowling Alone”, sociologist Robert Putnam provides statistics indicating that rates of community service and volunteerism are much higher among those who attend church regularly compared to non-church-goers. Obviously, that’s not just a coincidence.
There is a a vigorous debate among Christians about the role of government in alleviating poverty, however that is different issue than “caring about the poor”. There are some Christians who argue that helping the poor is primarily an individual responsibility and that the government’s role in fighting poverty should be reduced. While I partially disagree with that, (it is both an individual and collective responsibility) such views are the product of political philosophy and not a reflection of personal compassion or theology.
Superficial observations like, “a lot of poor people are fat and watch TV, so they must be doing okay” really don’t do much to advance our understanding of poverty in America but only promote false sterotypes.
A full and complete consideration of poverty in America should also examine trends in the distribution of wealth among the population, the potential for upward mobility available to poor and middle-class Americans, and income gains or losses over time for each of the economic statums of the population as measured by wealth and income.
If we examine these trends a different picture emerges. The percentage of national wealth owned by the richest one percent of the population is now greater than at any time since the early nineteen-twenties. Even among the richest one percent there has been an increase in the percentage of wealth owned by the richest tenth of that percentile. Thisnhas occurred while income for middle- and lower-class Americans has stagnated or fallen.
Reviewing the latest Census Bureau figures, the Economic Pollicy Institute notes:
Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance trends in 2006, http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20070828
A truly strong economy is one where a rising tide lifts all boats. Many mainstream economists have noted that the growing concentration of wealth held by a mall number of very rich, in conjunction with income stagnation and growing economic risk for the middle-class poses a threat to the long-term economic well-being of our nation. For this reason, a reversal of the economic policies of the last 7 years is in order, requiring that we make our tax system more progressive and direct fiscal spending towards people in those economic strata who have realized the least economic gain.
Note 3, Dean, giving money to people without considering “culture” is recipe for failure
Your note remains one dimensional, it refers only to money. Your solution is to give people who have less money more money, through force of government, of course. To Dean all solutions are effected by government.
Have you asked yourself whether giving people who have less money more money actually improves the status of the recipients?
The American government has transferred a great deal of wealth to the poor through many, many programs since the 1960’s. How has that worked out?
Unless you study those programs and objectively assess whether they succeeded in any measure, you cannot responsibly advocate the same old thing. The “same old thing” is use the power of coercion possessed by government to transfer wealth from those who have earned it in an honest manner to those who have not earned it.
Thought experiment. We have just given a poor family a stipend of $500/month. Does this improve their well-being? It depends on how the money is spent. If you speak to social workers who work directly with the poor, they will tell you that there exists a culture of poverty. This is what Bill Cosby has been talking about with reference to Black family, it applies in only slightly different form to all families.
Here are some of the features of the culture of poverty.
A) poor health habits, which lead to poor health, which drains what small resources the family has and which interfere with steady employment.
Are the poor health habits the result of ignorance? Perhaps, but, why, in this day of universal public education should anyone be ignorant of the basic facts needed to establish and maintain good health habits? Why don’t the Democrat controlled major cities like Detroit, Washington, D.C, and Philadelphia produce effective schols for their own constituents?
Are there middle class people with poor health habits? Sure, but due to other decisions that they have made, it does not have the catastrophic effect
on the family.
casual atitude about family unity Studies show that the incidence of illegitimacy decreases as family income rises; so does longevity of marriage.
You can argue that poverty puts strains on poor families, fine I accept that, however, FAMILY HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED BY AMERICANS AS A SOCIAL SAFETY NETWORK. How did previous immigrant groups rise from abject poverty? Waves of Poles, Italians, Greeks and others have come to America owning literally nothing, yet, through the strength of family cohesiveness they overcome and prospered. In addition to family cohesiveness, a strong attachment to a church/synagogue community also supported success. Minimal resources were shared and used wisely. Every family member helped every other family member in productive activities such as the persuit of education and steady employment.
Some Black leaders have begun to speak out about the cultural effect of rap music which denigrates women and holds life-long marriage in contempt. IN the world of rap, life-long marriages and steady work are for chumps. Money won’t solve this problem.
Would giving money to a young man who aspires to live the life of a rapper really improve anything?
C)poor schools See the work of Marva Collins who started a private school for low-income black children. Here students were studying Shakespeare at as 13 and 14. She employed all of the old-fashioned teaching techniques that had proven effective pre WWII. These techniques have been abandoned by the current educational establishment. The result is abject failure for black and other low income children.
d)live for today approach to finances I read an article by a social worker who stated that the poor see money as entertainment, the middle class see money as security and the rich see money as a route to family power. It is a matter of looking at the bigger picture, the long-term picture.
e)drug and alcohol addiction Remember it was the cultural Left that worked hard to normalize recreational drug usage.
Add up these factors and it is clear that a transfer of money won’t help very much but it will cost a great deal
I once explained to a casual friend of mine that my accounant father saved up money and purchased a car for cash in order to avoid interest payments on loans. By the way, we had nice, new cars, not junk. My friend was amazed as she had never heard of anything like that.
Money transfers are no answer and they have the unintended effect of penalizing the productive through the coercive power of government.
$127 billion and counting, or $500,000 per person who lived in New Orleans
To date, the people of the United States have given $127 billion to New Orleans. To put this in perspective, the entire “GNP” of the State of Louisiana is $141 billion. The money given is enough to provide each person living inside the city limits of New Orleans with $500,000.
This week every leader in New Orleans has made a public plea for more money
Many engineers hold the position that parts of old New Orleans can never be adequately protected from storm related floods and that they should be closed off from human habitation. However, NO leaders want the rest of America to rebuild neighborhoods located many, many feet below sea level. Neighborhoods which are nearly impossible to protect from major storm surges.
It is one huge gravy train for corruption and graft, brought to you by the Democrat party.
Missourian: Fiscal stimulus is not “giving people money”. It is investment in our nation’s physical infrastructure, techincal capabilities and human resources with the goal of facilitating and expanding economic activity.
How many bridges need to collapse into the Mississippi river before people like you wake up? Tax cuts given to the very rich end up in sheltered accounts in the Cayman Islands. Tax revenue spent repairing roads and bridges in America create jobs for middle-class workers and spending by middle-class consumers. Money invested in research and development help create the industries and jobs of the future. Money spent of improvement of education and college tuition grants helps create workers who can be more productive.
As result of the narrow, selfish, myopic ideology you espouse, America is falling behind in alomst every category. We no longer have the tallest buildings, the fastests trains, the most educated work force or the healthiest population. Every day our nation sinks more perilously into debt while the infrastructure crumbles under our feet. Other nation’s have proud and dedicated civil services whose chief objective is the well being of their nation. America has a government run by “Brownies”, politically appointed, unqualified hacks and cronies who despise the idea of government and are only marking time and making connections until they can get back into the private sector. It can’t even accurately be called a free market economy, but it is rather a system of socialism for the rich, where every law is written with the objective of funnelling subsidies and tax breaks into the pockets of some favored industry.
20% of Washington D.C. public school students didn’t make it to first days of class
Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070830/METRO/108300079/1001
Somehow the poverty-stricken inhabitants of the New York immigrant tennement slums managed to get their kids to a New York Public School.
Those kids, in turn, managed to learn in an English only environment. The second generation went on to nearly unlimited success in America.
It isn’t just a matter of throwing money at people.
The Black community in particular needs to disown the rap parasites indoctrinating their kids and others’ kids in the culture of depravity.
Note #3:
Superficial observations like, “a lot of poor people are fat and watch TV, so they must be doing okay” really don’t do much to advance our understanding of poverty in America but only promote false sterotypes.
Nope. Fat people are not poor – at least any Christian definition of the term “poor”.
A full and complete consideration of poverty in America should also examine trends in the distribution of wealth among the population, the potential for upward mobility available to poor and middle-class Americans, and income gains or losses over time for each of the economic statums of the population as measured by wealth and income.
Actually, this is a materialist view, informed by your now conscious marxism, since we have told you about it numerous times 🙂
Besides, this is EXACTLY (upward mobility, etc.) what our economy provides better than any other – your just upset you can’t implement your marxist goals, so you co-opt the language (e.g. “upward mobility”).
For this reason, a reversal of the economic policies of the last 7 years is in order,
You Troll, you Democratic party hack, why don’t you go post this stuff on the Democratic party hack websites instead of here?? We have not bought it for the last 2 or 3 years, what do we have to do to get it through your hard heart and head that we will never buy this base propaganda????
Note 6, DeanS, where do you live?
No, Dean, America isn’t “falling behind” in almost every department. Our economy is outpeforming every other economy in the world. We have created more jobs in the last decade then then entire EU.
The Economist just ran a feature on the “America is doomed” theme. It recounted author after author predicting the “end of American economic dominance.”
We certainly have problems to solve, but, in the mean time, we are more prosperous than anyone has ever been. We have jobs for more people and have fewer genuinely poor people than any other country.
Everybody in the world wants to live here, Dean, right here in terrible, old, crumbling, stumbilng America. God Bless Her.
Note 6, Dean S, You have made Eisenhower roll in his grave, shame on you.
For ten points who was the “Father of the U.S. Interstate System” A great Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dean, trying to place the blame for bridge collapses on free-marketeers is a stretch even for you.
Open any Economics 101 textbook and you will see that classical, free-market economics calls for the government to invest in infrastructure.
Infrastructure, as I refer to it here, is defined as roads, waterways, airports and such. There is no debate there. It is simply ludicrous and ignorant to claim that free-marketeers don’t support good infrastructure.
.
As to the specific issue of New Orleans “infrastructure” there exists plenty of evidence of gross negligence and corruption in New Orleans and there is reason to question whether some parts of the city should be rebuilt in the same place. Even at that, $500,000 per person is a ridiculous amount of money by anyone’s standard.
As to the idea of “throwing money at people” I was referring to primarily to income transfer programs which you promote at every possible opportunity.
I have never run into anyone more obsessed with the idea of income redistrubtion and wealth redistribution more than you are.
There is an old saying in most business schools that if every dollar of wealth were evenly redistributed across every household in America in Year One, by Year Five the income distribution would show some people many more times wealthy than others. Some people handle their affairs well, some people work hard, some people save, some people don’t Dean. Redistribute all you want and you will never fail to have some people with bad judgment.
An old probate lawyer once told that that after 25 years of probate practice, he observed the 90% of all inheritances are spent within one year of receipt.
Most people don’t have the discipline to save and work with the future in mind
it is just human nature. Those that do will do better on average.
The Soviets tried to create a “new man.” It didn’t work but they killed tens of millions in the trying. I would like to avoid a replay of that scenario.
Note 10, Dean, government is the only human creation capable of killing and imprisoning millions, it should be watched like a hawk and starved.
By the way, education in America is one of the most dysfunctional institutions we have. It consumes more and more money and delivers less and less. Please tell me who is in charge of American education? Teacher’s unions, the biggest contributors to the Democrat party.
Modern universities fail to teach Americans their own history and the value of their own culture, while at the same time, actually undoing the traits that bode for success in the world. American employers are noting that many degrees disqualify a person for work. No employer in their right mind would hire a “woman’s studies” major for example.
Assistance can be provided in any area and it becomes utmost important for the organizations to see that the service is done well.
Let me share my views about Personal Assistance services and my experiences with them.
Usually some business concerns outsource assistance services or personal assistance services when they do not locate adequate time to concentrate in their business activities. Assistance services are provided to both top executives and clients. Assistance can be provided in any service as you may necessitate. Assistants/ Personal assistants are employed only after a thorough training to support any sort of work. He does his work autonomously. They also support disabled persons and help them to guide in their day today activities. By engaging them in our work we can meet those specific circumstances accordingly.
A personal assistant uses his own office / equipment to complete the projects or assignments taken. Companies employing them need not pay compensation like monthly salary, sick pay, vacation pay, insurance and other benefits. You only need to pay for the work that is outsourced. There is no need to train them separately as they are already trained and qualified. They are always at your service and fulfill their duty on time.
My experiences with personal assistants were good. We have outsourced some of these services to vServe solution (www.vservesolution.com) and Diksha research from India and found their services to be satisfying and reliable. The prices offered for their services are affordable and hence I gladly recommend these companies for their service.
Once again, Christopher you are making sweeping genalizations without any supporting evidence. Where is the data to subtantiate your assertion that the United States has greater upward economic mobility than any other country? I don’t live in your magical world of myth and dogma, so if you want to convince me of something you have to provide evidence.
One study I found entitled, Understanding Mobility in America, April 26, 2006, Center for American Progress http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html concluded:
note 13:
Once again, Christopher you are making sweeping genalizations without any supporting evidence.
Once again Dean, you are applying a marxist/socialist framework to man – making him a “victim” instead of a child of God. What is man???
A man who is fat, has a roof over his head, has more than one tv, a cell phone, etc. is not “poor” by any reasonable defintion. He may be deficient in other areas (the ability to discipline himself, to prioritize, etc being the most likely) but he is not “poor”
The rest of your post is the usual Democratic Hack talking points. Should you not be Trolling somewhere else??
Christopher –
Now here is where I’ll differ with you. I am the unhappy citizen of a formerly publicly traded company. The company went private and is now the vassal of a venture capital company, as are quite a number of tech companies.
The benefits are declining, the work conditions are going South, in fact the whole thing has most of us heading for the exits.
Now is this the government’s fault?
Yes. Sarbanes-Oxley, burdensome regulation that requires on-balance sheet hedges to be marked to market, and other FASB regulations I could name have conspired to make ‘going private’ a really attractive option for management.
For employees, we get the shaft. Add that to increasing concerns over outsourcing and in-sourcing, and the technology sector as a whole is full of a bunch of well-paid but increasingly miserable people.
Is this Bush’s fault? Partially, he certainly hasn’t done anything to buck these trends. Have the Dems done anything meaningful?
Nope, in fact some of their pet policies have contributed to the issue.
The problem is no one is really dealing with the situation as it is. Dems scream ‘poverty’ and Republicans scream back, “Tax cuts have produced the best economy in a generation!”
Bull. For my sector things are lousy, but the Dems don’t offer a solution which will amount to anything other than the opportunity to make it worse.
The Republicans offer a moderated version of the Dems poison pill.
I know you don’t like Dean’s comments, but be real. I’m not nearly as concerned about poor people on welfare as I am about middle class white-collar employees who are getting the shaft.
Glen – Your Naderite claim that there are no differences in the economic policies of Republicans and Democrats really doesn’t stand scrutiny.
I will agree that the Democrats are confused and all-over-the board when it comes to trade policy and the wisdom of outsourcing. However beyond that, it’s clear that Democrats support more domestic spending and fewer and smaller tax cuts and corporate subsidies, while the Republicans champion less domestic spending and more tax cuts and corporate subsidies. That is a huge, major difference in fiscal policy.
Democratic argue that spending on infrastructure projects that create jobs, combined with tax cuts directed towards the middle class would have created a huge boost in spending that would have been highly stimulative for the economy. Republicans countered that tax cuts inevitably, and almost magically, result in greater incentives to work , and even greater incentives to spend, resulting in an economic surge that replaces the revenue lost through the tax cut. However, recent experience doesn’t support this. While tax cuts directed at middle-class workers with unmet material needs do lead to spending, tax cuts directed at the rich, who have all their material needs satisfied, tend to be saved, rather than spent.
Recent studies, and I will refer to two, do not support Republican claims that tax cuts create a surge in economic activitty that replaces revenue.
A Heckuva Claim; Mr. Bush is oblivious to the consequences of his tax cuts.. The Washington Post Saturday, January 6, 2007; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501801.html
Tax cuts for the rich, a central feature of Republican economic strategy, have exploded the deficit, and led to widening economic inequality. The Democratic approach certainly would have resulted in different results.
The adoption of supply-side economics fundamentally changed the philosophy of the Republican party, writes Jonathan Chait in The New Republic:
How a cult hijacked American politics. Flight of the Wingnuts
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070910&s=chait091007
Dean did Chait write this article or did he borrow it from his friend Stephen Glass?
Dean by posting Chait’s editiorial all you’ve done is regurgitated leftist opinion, not fact. You need to get over posting editorials by political wonks as though they are self-evident as some kind of “truth”.
JBL – What part specifically do you disagree with, and what is the substantive evidence that demonstrates that it is wrong?
Republicans were not always slavish, cult-like devotees of what George Herbert Walker Bush called “voodoo economics. (Despite the elder Bush’s misgivings the fact remains that more that half the national debt incurred by the people of the United States was accumulated under Presidents named Bush.) There was a time when the Republican party stood for good government and sound economic policies. Chait writes:
I would like my Republican friends to consider that their party’s path back to power lies in putting down the supply-side Kool-Aid and returning to the cautious and fiscally responsible economic policies of their more moderate predecessors
Dean,
You really need to expand your reading list from political tripe and parroting the information as some kind of enlightened truth. It’s not. It’s the opinion of a political activist attempting to sway the weak minded to his viewpoint.
You’ve been posting these anti-Repulican economic claptrap as though this is some kind of “new revelation”. It’s not Chait and his ilk are just repeating the old arguments made during the Reagan years. And their solution is for Republican to just become more like the left economically and everything will be okay and paradise on Earth will be ushered in. Dean don’t drink the Kool-aid you warn so many others about drinking.
You’re so concerned about Republicans following a “horrible economic” path you seem to ignore the political changes of the Democrats. Who for a time where unwilling to sacrifice their unborn children on the altar of abortion politics as they are today. The Democrats have moved away from the party of FDR and JFK to devoting themselves to unrestricted abortion at any cost. Yet I don’t see you posting “solutions” to help the Democrats return to a cautious and more responsible path of their moderate predecessors. Move beyond hyperbole and don’t swallow the hook,line, and sinker of political pandering.
Support for Roe V. Wade by a majority of Democratic politicians is a major failing of the Democratic party and one that puts it in opposition to Christian morality. The core assumption upon which the entire opinion rests is that in the first trimester of life the unborn child is not a “person” deserving of legal protection. A consistent ethic of life demands respect and defense of human life both inside and outside of the womb at all stages of gestation and life. While legal prohibition may not be the best approach to reducing abortion, the government should at the very least stop all public funding for abortions not medically neccesary, provide greater financial incentives for adoption and greatly increase all public health measures aimed at curbing unwanted pregnancies.
The fact that per capita rates of abortion are highest among women in lower income groups suggests a socio-economic link between poverty and abortion. Women without husbands or economic support are less likely to carry to term. Men without jobs are less likely to marry. It’s not the entire explanation for why abortions occur, but a part of it.
So while the Democrats are undeniably morally deficient in their support for Roe V. Wade, their economic policies at least ameliorate some of the conditions that cause abortions to occur. Republican policies which funnel revenue away from programs to help the poor and into the pockets of the rich, on the other hand, exacerbate those conditions.
So what are you arguing Dean, that Democratic policies to reduce the population through abortion to lower the welfare state is morally superior?
No, I never said that at all. That you could even draw such a wild and unsupported conclusion demonstrates a willfully malicious intent.
My point was that government efforts to fight poverty have an indirect effect of lowering the abortion rate because giving young men and women more hope about their own economic prospects makes them more willing to marry and be parents.
And your proof that government economic policies reduce abortion is where Dean?
note 23:
My point was that government efforts to fight poverty have an indirect effect of lowering the abortion rate because giving young men and women more hope about their own economic prospects makes them more willing to marry and be parents.
In your Marxist dreams. Abortion is not “caused” by economic conditions. Otherwise, abortion would be class issue, but it is not. Middle class and “rich” people are just as likely to commit the deed.
Your attempt to turn abortion (and everything else Mr. Marx) into a class and economic war is pathetic…Should you not be Trolling at http://www.MarxismToday.org ?????
Note 21:
The fact that per capita rates of abortion are highest among women in lower income groups suggests a socio-economic link between poverty and abortion.
No it does not. It suggests a “laziness” link at best. Poverty does not “cause” moral degradation, anymore than poverty “causes” disease, or happiness, etc. This is a moral problem, not a problem to be put into the false categories of class warfare Mr. Marx…
While I would not go so far as to call it “proof”, the data clearly shows an association between abortion rates and poverty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000964.html
Income-level is not the only independent variable driving abortion rates since abortions occur within all economic groups. There would have to be other co-variates at work driving abortion rates after you hold income level constant, and we can speculate that they include things like church-attendance, level of family-support, attitudes of social-peers, and education.
However, the much higher rate of abortions among lower-income women alerts us to the fact that income-level must also be a strong variable. So while we don’t have “proof” that government economic policies reduce abortion rates, we can logically extrapolate that addressing the economic conditions which lead to unwanted pregnancies (lack of education) and discourage men from marrying (unemployment), and women from motherhood (uncertain income, lack of health care), would bring the abortion rate among lower-income women down to a level closer to that of the middle and upper income cohorts.
If our goal is to reduce the abortion rate attacking poverty is helpful but not sufficient. We also need the other measure I listed previously, ending public funding for abortion, providing greater financial incentives for adoption, and treating unwanted pregnancy as a serious public health problem.
Alan Guttmacher Institute? That’s the marketing arm of Planned Parenthood. They do the market surveys and PP builds the clinics. One hand washes the other and a lot of people get rich. (How about putting some of those profits back into the communities they ostensibly help, Dean?)
Dean, your policies helped create the climate where abortion is rampant.
Did you know that PP plants most of their abortion clinics around poorer neighborhoods? They undermine the moral foundations that would serve as a brake on abortion, draw boatloads of cash from the collapse, and masquerade as independent researchers chronicling it all.
Note 21,
Dean, have you ever considered that poor folks are actually targeted by the abortion industry?
http://www.dawneden.com/2007/08/margaret-sanger-is-alive-and-well-and.html
That would be consistent with Planned Parenthood’s philosophy which views the termination, not prevention, of unwanted pregnancies as their goal. But Planned Parenthood’s exploitation of frightened lower-income women is a symptom and not the cause of the greater problem, which is both moral and economic in nature.
I wish there was other research on the association between abortion rates and income level besides the Guttmacher study, since Guttmacher’s ties to Planned Parenthood create doubt on the objectivity of the study. However, unless some methodological flaw is found in their research, and I have seen none mentioned, we have to accept it’s findings. Other independent academic studies I found on Google, referred to the Guttmacher study. Policy should be made on the basis of empirical evidence gathered using scientific research tools, and not speculation, theory or conjecture. Otherwise our efforts and energies will be misdirected and squandered.
Fr. Hans writes: “Alan Guttmacher Institute? That’s the marketing arm of Planned Parenthood. They do the market surveys and PP builds the clinics. One hand washes the other and a lot of people get rich.”
Are you saying that you discount the numbers because they come from a particular organization? You accuse the AG Institute of getting rich off of abortion. But when they publish numbers that could be used as a basis for programs that reduce the abortion rate (did you actually read the article?) you seem to reject the numbers.
You don’t like the idea that Planned Parenthood builds clinics in poor areas (I don’t know if they do or not). But many of their services involve contraception — that can also reduce the abortion rate. If Planned Parenthood is all about getting rich off of abortion, then one wonders why they also offer contraception.
I’m not sure what is the true goal of the anti-abortion lobby. Supposedly it is to reduce or eliminate abortion. But I think there’s more to it than that. I think the goal is not to reduce abortion per se, but rather that only certain strategies consistent with a particular ideology are acceptable.
Christopher, in posts 25 and 26 makes it clear that only certain factors can be considered. Poverty is out, because that is “Marxist” or “class warfare” thinking. Presumably contraception is out, because is might “undermine the moral foundations.” I suppose sex education is also out, for the same reason.
As far as I can tell, for the hard right anti-abortion lobby, the only acceptable strategies for reducing abortion are either
1) young people not having sex (not likely), or
2) driving abortion clinics out of business, or
3) using the power of the State to prohibit abortion
Is that it, or are there other acceptable strategies?
Note 31. Jim writes:
No, I am saying that the Alan Gutmacher “Institute” is as interested in lowering abortion rates as Madonna is (was) in promoting chastity. Both make for nice soundbytes (Madonna could commission some research too), but the fact is that lowering abortion rates hits PP in right where it’s hurts: their wallet. Let’s remember, PP is an industry, and a particularly lucrative one at that, and the greed that drives their grisly business won’t be easily assuaged — their ostensible public relations machine (of which the AGI is part) notwithstanding.
From blackgenocide.org:
Jim concludes:
It’s not that difficult to understand. They want to dupe people into passively accepting their neo-eugenic program. They think the best way to eliminate poverty and single parenthood is by curbing population and offspring.
Fr. Hans writes: “Let’s remember, PP is an industry . . .”
They’re a private, non-profit organization, right?
Fr. Hans: ” . . . and a particularly lucrative one at that . . .”
What does “lucrative” mean? That their revenue exceeds their expenses?
Fr. Hans: ” . . . and the greed that drives their grisly business won’t be easily assuaged — their ostensible public relations machine (of which the AGI is part) notwithstanding.”
What constitutes “greed” in a non-profit organization? For example, the Red Cross gets revenue by selling blood products. Hopefully their revenue exceeds expenses. Would that make them “greedy?”
Fr. Hans quotes: “Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.”
Both non-profit and for-profit organizations locate their facilities where convenient for their clients and customers. If Minorities are the largerst users of contraception and abortion services, where should PP locate their offices? In the white part of town?
Fr. Hans quotes: “Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population.”
In that sense, I suppose the condom machine located in the bathroom of the restaurant is also a tool of “genocide.” But what a strange definition of “genocide.” But it is touching when social conservatives worry about there being a shortage of black folks. I always thought the problem was too many out of wedlock births. Turns out that the problem is that there aren’t enough.
Fr. Hans: “They think the best way to eliminate poverty and single parenthood is by curbing population and offspring.”
Whereas in your view the best way is . . . . . ?
Here is a solid research paper on the causes of abortion written from someone with a pro-life orientation. It supports the contention that government economic policy can play a beneficial role in reducing the rate of abortion, while measures aimed at reducing access to abortion appear to be less successful.
Reducing Abortion in Kansas: Expanding Jobs and Health Insurance for Families and Opportunities for Children, Joseph Wright, Catholics United for the Common Good.
http://www.catholics-united.org/files/Reducing-Abortion-in-Kansas.pdf
Government action making a difference: House Democrats have introduced H.R. 6067, the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. The Bill was introduced by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), a member of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.
http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2007/July/Labor_HHS_07_19_07.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:8:./temp/~c109Co4PIH::
This is the first major legislation aimed at reducing the number of abortions in the US. The legislation:
Note 33. Jim writes:
In this case the nature of the work. Selling blood products saves lives. Abortion kills lives.
Such sanitized language, Jim, as if PP is no different than, say, NPR or the local preservation society. And the link between contraception and abortion is interesting too, although dubious. Like PP, you seem to think that abortion is just another form of birth control. PP certainly does, although of course much more profitable. You indicate as much when you write:
In real life the two cannot be conflated. From another direction, the “genocide” that Blacks (correctly) decry is promulgated by rich white folks, ideology and all. Curbside, full service, as it happens.
Restoration of the family. It is the only way. Short of that, the Blacks poor will remain poor, and the White eugenicists will keep on promulgating the poverty and the grisly solutions for it.
Note 35. This indicates that the moral tide is moving against abortion. I can’t see the present Democratic leadership doing much about abortion however, since they are beholden to the hard left on social issues. I would be wary too that abortion isn’t a trojan horse to make Hilary Care morally palatable, which, as we know, would encourage abortions if people like Clinton, Pelosi, Boxer, etc. were ever put in charge of health care.
Abortion in the Black community is a function of poverty, but poverty is not alleviated in the long term by throwing money at it. Rather, long term prosperity also depends on cohesive social bonds, familial and communal, that won’t be restored if social engineering programs like the Great Society (and Planned Parenthood eugenics), are not curbed. Beware of the law of unintended effects. If the state starts taking care of the babies of unwed mothers, you just might end up with more unwed mothers (good for PP’s bottom line) and more babies — if the root causes of poverty are ignored.
Also, I’ll have a bit more confidence in the liberals if they were more eager to criticize the increasing decadence of popular culture. They get so much money from the entertainment industry though (the chief promulgators of the sexualization of youth), that I don’t really believe they will raise their voices.
Fr. Hans: “In this case the nature of the work. Selling blood products saves lives. Abortion kills lives.”
I know what they do, and I’m not questioning your disapproval. But you’re attributing a specific motive to them — greed. That may or may not be the case. But I just don’t see any evidence of that. While they get income from abortions, there are also many expenses — physician, nurses, supplies, medications, insurance, etc. Without knowing the expense component, I don’t know if the revenue exceeds expenses. My humble opinion — your argument is stronger when you don’t attribute motives to them that can’t be proven.
Fr. Hans: “Such sanitized language, Jim, as if PP is no different than, say, NPR or the local preservation society.”
Of course it is not NPR nor are abortions routine birth control. But my point is that they are engaged in a perfectly legal activity, serving women who want the services, whose right to those services — contraception, family planning information, and abortion — has been upheld in the Supreme Court. So we would actually expect them to locate their facilities in those areas that are most convenient to their clients. Again, I understand your moral disapproval, but the fact that they try to pick convenient locations is not in itself a nefarious activity.
Fr. Hans: ” Like PP, you seem to think that abortion is just another form of birth control. PP certainly does, although of course much more profitable.”
Again, without knowing the costs, we have no idea whether it is profitable or not, or to what extent.
Fr. Hans: “From another direction, the “genocide” that Blacks (correctly) decry is promulgated by rich white folks, ideology and all. Curbside, full service, as it happens.”
I don’t understand how women consciously and intentionally using contraception or abortion constitutes “genocide.” It’s an extreme argument, and I don’t know how you would defend that. Again, I think you have a legitimate moral argument against abortion, so why encumber it with weak assertions?
Fr. Hans: “Restoration of the family. It is the only way. Short of that, the Blacks poor will remain poor, and the White eugenicists will keep on promulgating the poverty and the grisly solutions for it.”
That’s the 64 thousand dollar question. How does that happen?
Fr. Hans: “Also, I’ll have a bit more confidence in the liberals if they were more eager to criticize the increasing decadence of popular culture. They get so much money from the entertainment industry though (the chief promulgators of the sexualization of youth), that I don’t really believe they will raise their voices.”
But really, isn’t that more of a corporate thing? My liberal friends don’t go around looking for ways to insert more profanity in rap music. In fact, they don’t like rap music. Just today, one of my atheist co-workers went on two diatribes — one against religion, and one against rap music.
You know, there are a lot of conservatives making money on popular culture. Popular culture is popular because people want it. They pay for it. They vote with their dollars. You want liberals to “criticize” the increasing decadence of popular culture. But who will care what they say? Is anyone in the country not going to watch a movie because John Kerry says not to watch it? For that matter is anyone not going to watch a movie because Rush Limbaugh says not to watch it? Who cares what these politicians and pundits say?
Jim writes:
Jim, it sounds so reasonable doesn’t it? — I mean shelving abortion alongside contraception, family planning information, Supreme Court decisions, even effective placement of their stores. Hey, what’s a dismembered fetus or two?
Of course, if we want to remove the moral onus from the procedure, then we’ll pretend the “fetal remains” did not involve the extinguishing of a human life. We’ll mask the horror under the “family planning” rubric and equate abortion with contraception, and keep it neat and tidy like a Planned Parenthood promotional brochure.
Another Abortion Record at Planned Parenthood: PPFA Tries to
Mask Crucial Role of Abortion to Its Mission and Bottom Line
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, it sounds so reasonable doesn’t it? — I mean shelving abortion alongside contraception, family planning information, Supreme Court decisions, even effective placement of their stores. Hey, what’s a dismembered fetus or two?”
My point is that just because you disagree with one of their services doesn’t mean that every criticism of them is automatically valid. I mean, if any other company or agency charges money to cover the cost of services, that’s fine. If PP does it, that’s “greed.” Or, take for example your other quote:
This reported percentage, touted relentlessly by PPFA president Cecile Richards, fails to include ancillary services that may be sold along with the abortion and ignores the fact that abortion provides PPFA with a huge–and steady–stream of revenue.
Saying that some service provides a “huge stream” of revenue means almost nothing unless you know what the costs are. I don’t know anything about the finances of stand-alone clinics, but at public hospitals it’s common for expenses to exceed revenue in outpatient clinics. That’s Ok, because the hospital makes money on ancillary services and inpatient referrals from the clinics. But you could talk about the “huge and steady revenue stream” some hospital gets from outpatient services while ignoring the fact that the hospital actually loses money on those services.
Again, this “revenue stream” is presented as something nefarious. Well, guess what. When an organization charges money for a service, there is a revenue stream.
In your view, would abortion be a more moral activity if Planned Parenthood did it for free? If not, then the fact that they charge for it is actually a good thing, yes?
Also, for the extreme right, it seems that any kind of opposition to abortion is automatically valid. Another article you posted denounced PP’s “hypocrisy” over a Missouri law that would have required abortion clinics to be renovated and equipped like outpatient surgical centers.
So here we have conservatives who in any other case denounce “unnecessary governmental regulations driving up the cost of business.” They rail against increases in healthcare costs. Except when it comes to abortion. Then they want unnecessary governmental regulations driving up the cost of business. They want needlessly higher healthcare costs. They want poor people to pay more for services that are legal and even constitutional to receive, that a majority of people in the country think should be legal. The law also would have prohibited anyone involved in an organization that provides abortion from teaching sex education in public schools. So much for free speech.
If a politician votes to subsidize tobacco — a substance that kills some hundreds of thousands of people a year, and that survives as an industry by turning young people into nicotine addicts — that politician is a member in good standing in the church, more than welcome to participate in the Eucharist. But if the same politician also personally opposes abortion but thinks it should be legal, then that’s a terrible thing, and he must be excluded.
For the extreme right, abortion isnt the tail that wags the dog. It’s the tail, the body, the muzzle, the whole dog. And for the sake of opposing it, any other principle can be sacrificed.
Note 40. Jim writes:
I guess, then, we need to gloss over whether or not abortion is an intrinsic evil or if the evil it is just a matter of my opinion. I mean, if abortion is just another PP “service”, then what does it matter if we dismember a fetus or two (and yes, “dismember” is the appropriate term here), or burn off its skin with saline, or, as the antiseptic PP promotional page explained:
“Pregnancy tissue”? George Orwell, call your office.
Jim continues:
Precisely my point. Marketing abortions is nefarious, not because of the marketing, but because of the product marketed.
Not really. Abortion is ground zero in the culture war because it crystalizes the anthropological dimension of that conflict.
Look for my article in the next issue of AGAIN magazine (release date: September 24; I will post it online once it is published), where I examine this anthropological dynamic in more detail.
I hate the phrase “culture war”, because it suggests that we are incapable of overcoming our differences, setting aside the stereotypes that we use to demonize each other, and uniting behind a trancendent and all-encompassing culture of life.
Liberals and Democrats need to recognize, and understand why, many Americans, probably a majority, view abortion as an issue with at least as much moral urgency as slavery or genocide. The argument that the unborn child is not “human”, and therefore ineligible for legal protection, is extremely offensive and abhorent to millions of Americans. As even Justice Blackmun admitted in Roe v. Wade, the assumption that life “begins” at the end of the first trimester is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in science, religion, ethics or philosophy. A morally neutral position towards abortion is therefore unacceptable. While reasonable people can debate the appropriate means for reducing abortion, there should be no doubt that morality requires that reducing it be our urgent objective.
In his famous (and highly recommended) essay, “Politics and the English Language”, George Orwell wrote that one of the signs of moral corruption and delusion was the use of neutral-sounding euphemisms to hide ghastly and inhuman acts.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
As Father has pointed out, this is eaxctly the type of language employed by ornanizations like Planned Parenthood when addressing the unborn children whose lives are terminated by abortion procedures.
Unwillingness to recognize the moral urgency of the abortion issue undermines liberals when they try and raise awareness of other moral issues. “Why do you care so much about polar bears, or people without health insurance, for example, but not unborn children?”, is a fair and reasonable question, for which there is really no intelligent answer. Conservatives and Republicans need to understand that they also undermine their own cause and present themselves to the world as hypocrites and liars when they appear to limit their concern for human life to only those humans residing in wombs.
Conservatives and Republicans often appear all too willing to compromise away their respect for the sanctity of human life when it interferes with the sanctity of the free market. A culture that champions the sanctity of human life should therefore embrace all efforts to protect our environment, expand access to health care, and address the systemic and structural causes of poverty, and not subordinate these objectives to the needs of corporate shareholders. A philosophy that embraces profit, selfishness and tax avoidance as its highest values canot be reconciled with the teachings of Christ, which tell us over and over again that we have a responsibility to help our neighbor and that all the possesions we store up on earth are utterly worthless in God’s Kingdom.
Dean the whole issue is dehumanization. We used to have a cultural consensus about what it meant to be human. It was not perfect and indeed had a lot of flaws, but the replacement being proposed in the political realm is wholly unsatisfactory. Unfortunately, the prevalent view of humaness has become what is sensually gratifying whether is is money, power or sex take your pick. Democrats tend to promote the sex and power, while Republicans and Libertarians promote the money and power.
I do not believe that there is one politician with any real power who is not corrupt. I have also come to the conclusion that our society is too far gone and will disolve because of that level of corruption, certainly NOTHING of a political nature will be of any help whatsoever. We are no longer a society that has any concern for what it really means to be human. Historically, such corruption and dissolution is the inevitable result of any political entity.
IMO it is the function of the Church and those of us within her to act prophetically and do what we can to pick up the pieces when the structure finally falls apart.
It’s possible we could see a third party ascendant in the US by 2012. The Republicans look like they’re going to suffer major losses in 2008, especially if we are still in Iraq and have a major recession underway. If crazy Cheney and his neoconservative flying monkeys engineer an attack on Iran, then we willl have an even wider conflict in the middle-east, much more terrorism, and $8 a gallon gasoline. People are really going to be suffering and they will turn with anger on whatever scapegoat they can find, like undocumented immigrants.
Arnold Schwarzenneger, who has little talent when it comes to the day-to-day details of governing, but a good eye for the panoramic big picture, spoke to his fellow California Republicans over the weekend:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/08/schwarzenegger-challenges-republicans/
The Democrats, on the other hand, don’t appear to me to have the real courage that’s going to be needed to deal with the very serious problems that will be getting a lot worse as their watch begins after 2008. Whoever assumes power in 2009 is going to have to make a lot of difficult and unpopular choices as recession hits, revenues fall, our military reaches its breaking point, trade and federal budget deficits push the value of the dollar lower, and our health care system’s death spiral accelerates. The irony is that just as the Democrats get their opportunity to expand domestic spending, a deepening recession is going to take away the revenue for them to do so.
Note 42:
I hate the phrase “culture war”, because it suggests that we are incapable of overcoming our differences
Your liberal instincts again. There is no “over coming differences” – there is no compromise on this and many other things. You are either a person at conception, or not. You are either pregnant, or not. There is no compromise position. Some things in life are like that. There are moral absolutes, there is “Truth”. I guess you don’t like St. Paul, or most of the Church Fathers either, who often uses the language of war…
While reasonable people can debate the appropriate means for reducing abortion, there should be no doubt that morality requires that reducing it be our urgent objective.
Wrong. A “reduction” is a compromise. We do not jail murderers to “reduce” murder. “reduction” is weasel talk for compromise because you don’t really believe in Truth. You assuage your position as “realistic”, but at the end of the day it’s yet another fallen compromise…
Dean writes: “I hate the phrase “culture war”, because it suggests that we are incapable of overcoming our differences.”
Christopher responds: “Your liberal instincts again. There is no “over coming differences” – there is no compromise on this and many other things.”
Great. Dude, how’s that “culture war” and demonization of enemies working out for you? Abortion doesn’t happen any more? No? What a surprise.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results. ” — Benjamin Franklin
In my observation much opposition to abortion consists of the opponents emoting and denouncing their enemies. And how good that must feel. And how ineffective.
Right – because we all saw how successful Prohibition was in ending the consumption of alcohol.
Unless you change the underlying culture that leads to unwanted pregnancies, all you are going to do is chase the abortion industry underground where it will be less safe and women will be harmed too. The we will have compounded the tragedy.
Mr. Scourtes #47:
“Right – because we all saw how successful Prohibition was in ending the consumption of alcohol.”
Abortion is not alcohol. Abortion is murder, at least according to the Church and also, I would argue, according to proper reasoning. The potential that some or many people would violate a prohibition against abortion is not a valid reason for the state to condone or legalize the practice.
About a third of taxpayers cheat on income taxes. Would you argue that we should legalize that practice, which is arguably less serious than taking a life?
Mr. Holman #46:
“In my observation much opposition to abortion consists of the opponents emoting and denouncing their enemies. And how good that must feel. And how ineffective.”
In my experience and from what I see in the press and pop culture, the supporters of abortion are quite effective in making emotive statements and vicious denunciations of their opponents. I have observed plenty of emotion on both sides of the issue. On the one side, people believe that millions of lives have been unjustifiably ended. On the other side, people believe that their personal autonomy is sacred and that it is under attack. In both cases,
I don’t think the movements are driven by emotion, but by the underlying philosophies. I would argue that the opposition to abortion is driven by a certain view of what it is to be human, of what it means to be alive, and of what is right and wrong – not by raw emotion.
note 47:
Right – because we all saw how successful Prohibition was in ending the consumption of alcohol.
As Mr. George points out, there are some things in life call for one sort of thing, and others for another sort of thing. Sins are that way too. For someone who references the Roman Catholic’s allot, of course you should know this. But you don’t actually understand the RC teaching, you just clip it in that middle school debate sort of way…;)
Unless you change the underlying culture that leads to unwanted pregnancies, all you are going to do is chase the abortion industry underground where it will be less safe and women will be harmed too.
Which is EXACTLY where it belongs, in the underworld, the seedy, creepy side of town, where despair, desperation, and hopelessness is (almost) the only thing in view. It belongs to those who, despite having a cell phone, air conditioning, and a car, you would call “poor” (poor in spirit no doubt) and are on their 5 pregnancy by the 4 loveless father, and who seek out a crack infested cousin to use a hanger to “abort” the child within them. It belongs here – this is where the “abortion industry” should be. The Devil walks too and fro on the earth, and some places he visits more often than others. We can not do anything about this, but we can (with God’s help) put abortion where it belongs.
The we will have compounded the tragedy.
Wrong. Darkness is darkness, you “compound” darkness by making places where the light should be, into the dark. Your view is what compounds the darkness, not outlawing abortion. Outlawing abortion shines the light in more places, limiting the darkness to the underworld (where it belongs).
In a way, you Dean are like an adviser to Pontius Pilate, advising him on how to “reduce” crucifixions. Pontius knows in his heart that it is wrong, as he says “what evil has He done?” but you are more attuned to the crowd crying “Barrabbas”! You would have the crucifixions continue, until you can convince the crowd to lay aside their sin. Problem is, the crowd has suffered a little thing called the Fall…
Dean’s statement in #47 that because people do not obey a law the law should be abolished is anarchic. It is the logical result of the political philosophy of the day regardless of party, i.e, “If you want power, give the ‘people’ what they want” Our politics have devolved into nothing more than bread and circuses. The only difference is which bread should be given to which part of the populace and what kind of circus should we mount today, we even have gladiators. The result: corruption, anarchy, mob rule and violence. In such a milleu abortion may seem to be a rational act of self-preservation, just as sex and drugs may seem to be the only recourse for a little surcease. Work is only for the stupid. There is no point in building for the future as there will be none.
Sooner or later, folks will want order and accept tyranny to provide it because we have refused to realize that our only freedom comes from a loving obedience to God which is true self-government. “Rights” only exist in a context of a divine order. The continued legal and societal masturbation of individual rights being supreme only leads to no one having any rights.
The ultimate result is that I have the right to kill anyone I can simply because I feel like it and I have no protection from anyone killing me except my own strength. This is the world that the ideas of Jim, Dean, Brent even Glen leads toward. It is the politics of self-destruction no matter what it is labeled. The “choices” with which we are presented in the political arena are all false. When we argue about their relative merits we only add to the escalating evaporation or society.
There is no merit to abortion, none. Anyone who holds otherwise is participating in evil. The same goes for those who believe that unrestricted sexuality is healthy. The unrestricted quest for worldly accumulation, etc., etc. We all know these things. It is only our own arrogance and fear that allow us to act differently. There is not one person posting here or reading the posts who does not participate in the evil of the day, not one. Politics will only ameliorate the evil when each of us withdraws a little from our own participation in the evil. We cannot expect politics, society or the Church to do what we refuse to do. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude here and in our society is quite the reverse. Many scream “individual autonomy” and demand mass action to “right wrongs”. It is stupid, illogical and futile. It is the little choices that each of us make every day, minute by minute that matter. If we make those choices in accord God, the politics will take care of itself. If we do not make those choices in accord with God, well…we can see the result of that.