The Great Secret Of G-dliness.

[Traveler]

I would like to express a reason for understanding the birth of Christ during this season.

Sometimes simple concepts are lost in the “bigger” picture. Of this post and thread I would have us focus and consider the simple doctrine or “gospel” where by weak things are made strong. It is the nature of this universe and state of things to rely on the strong. It is the strong that wins battles. It is the strength of wisdom that solves problems and makes life better. It is in strength that we look to religious and political leaders – and their great wisdom – to deliver us from our times of need. It is the science of the intelligent that pushes the envelope of human development. Or so it seems.

But it is G-d that makes that which strong or worthwhile in eternity. In the “beginning” G-d created his strongest and wises creature from dust. Dust by ancient definition is a substance that has no value or worth. But we are told that G-d takes that which is worthless and of no value and makes that which is great. This is a much different concept than the understanding of evolution that by thinning out the week the whole is made stronger – but the doctrine of G-d is that there is a method to madness and that which is week becomes the strong.

The most powerful force and intelligence in the universe came to earth and the manner was such a weak and feeble beginning that many do not recognize the truth being taught. Jesus came into the world of a woman – considered the weaker of the two sexes. He was not born in established habitations of human society but under conditions more suitable to beast, that are less than human.

Jesus demonstrated that way – or if you will – method, by which that which is weak becomes strong. All of us that comprise the human family are weak. We will become sick, many of us will become handicapped at some point of our life and have to depend on others for our survival. We will all be so overtaken by feebleness that we will all die.

Now there is a “BUT”. That which will become sick and die can be made strong. That which is weak can be raised up in divine power and void of all corruptible weaknesses. We can be made an heir to all that G-d has and is. Yes, my friends the great message is that which is weak is made into that which is strong above all other that can be related to strength. The true greatness of Christ is not in his suffering and death but in his resurrection to power and strength. All of which was done so that the weakest of the weak can be made strong like unto him.

And what is one of the great elements of this strength that can come to us. It is not by placing ourselves above others – think we will be saved – or that we will be in the great Kingdom of G-d. It is by lifting others – less fortunate than ourselves. It is by loosing ourselves in the weakness of the weak and assisting in their poverty that we overcome our own.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

And what is one of the great elements of this strength that can come to us. It is not by placing ourselves above others – think we will be saved – or that we will be in the great Kingdom of G-d. It is by lifting others – less fortunate than ourselves. It is by loosing ourselves in the weakness of the weak and assisting in their poverty that we overcome our own.

Saying you are going to lose yourself in the “weakness of the weak” and “assist in their poverty” IS placing yourself above them. You’re fooling yourself to think otherwise.

If you want to help people who are in poverty, fine. That's a noble endeavor. But call a spade a spade. You can't help someone in poverty if you are living in poverty as well, and all of your rambling, trying to be profound, is not going to change that.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

It's possible to help those who struggle (financially, psychologically, socially, etc.), and not see ourselves as "better." We may have more assetts, or be in a better place in lives, but, we are all made in the image of God, and so all made with equal natures.

IMHO: A handout is an expression of pride. A "hand up" is one of humanity.

[Elphaba]

It's possible to help those who struggle (financially, psychologically, socially, etc.), and not see ourselves as "better." We may have more assetts, or be in a better place in lives, but, we are all made in the image of God, and so all made with equal natures.

When it comes to "helping" people, many people have significantly different "natures." Their reasons for wanting to help people are all over the place, from purely selfish reasons, although they may not be aware of it, to purely selfless reasons. That is just human nature.

What the person says he/she is going to do to "help" is very telling, as in this case when Traveler says "it is by losing ourselves in the "weakness of the weak." I'm sorry, but I find that a very self-righteouss thing to say. He doesn't even know what the "weakness of the weak" is, and until he does, he should not be saying he is going to lose himself in it.

When he has learned exactly what the "weakness of the weak" is, I suspect he will then learn that it is nothing to speak lightly of, and, in fact, nothing to speak of publicly at all.

He will then learn that to lose himself in this "weakness," which is not a weakness at all, but something no one can understand unless they have experienced it themselves, he will understand it is perhaps something he is not even capable of doing. But if he has indeed experienced it, he will understand the need to keep it to himself, as it is an insult to those who have helped him understand what this "weakness" is. To speak of it as something he has a right to speak of is putting himself above it, and until he understands that, he has no right to speak of it.

IMHO: A handout is an expression of pride. A "hand up" is one of humanity.

Platitudes don't make one worth more than the other. Both can help and both can be meaningless. I can give a handout because it is all I have to give and it has nothing to do with pride; in fact, it might keep someone alive through the night so the person who can give a "hand up" the next day can help that person survive for life.

Or I can give a handout and the person will stick it in his/her pocket along with all of the other handouts received that day.

That is just life.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

I will concede that walking in another's shoes should engender humility.

IMHO: A handout is an expression of pride. A "hand up" is one of humanity.

Platitudes don't make one worth more than the other. Both can help and both can be meaningless. I can give a handout because it is all I have to give and it has nothing to do with pride; in fact, it might keep someone alive through the night so the person who can give a "hand up" the next day can help that person survive for life.

Or I can give a handout and the person will stick it in his/her pocket along with all of the other handouts received that day.

That is just life.

Elphaba

In most parts of the country...not all...but most...nobody should have to starve or freeze. There are shelters and there are soup kitchens. If we give the handout because we have nothing else to give, perhaps we don't need to give anything at all? Knowing that a soup kitchen and shelter are within 10 minutes walk, and seeing the "homeless vet needs a few bucks" sign, I'm inclined to think my gift may do more harm than good. Maybe I'm too cold-hearted about this, but handouts are, at best, very inefficient helps, imho.

[Elphaba]

In most parts of the country...not all...but most...nobody should have to starve or freeze. There are shelters and there are soup kitchens. If we give the handout because we have nothing else to give, perhaps we don't need to give anything at all? Knowing that a soup kitchen and shelter are within 10 minutes walk, and seeing the "homeless vet needs a few bucks" sign, I'm inclined to think my gift may do more harm than good. Maybe I'm too cold-hearted about this, but handouts are, at best, very inefficient helps, imho.

You are the last person I would think of as "cold-hearted." I also see your point about the shelter.

I am not saying my handout is efficient. It is just a handout, and to me, if I give it out, I personally don't expect it to mean anything. Once it's gone, I don't think about it any more.

I have never thought of it as actually doing more harm than good. I just don't feel like it's my place to make that determination. Even with your argument, which I can't refute, I still don't, and I'm not sure what to make of that.

Elphaba

Later edit: I realized I make it sound as if I give people handouts often. I do not, and can only think of two times when I have done so this past year.

I am also not someone who contributes money to shelters as I have only contributed food stuffs, not money.

I wanted to clarify these facts, as what I have written gives the wrong impression of what I have actually contributed.

E.

[Traveler]

Interesting that some think you must be better, smarter, richer or stronger than someone to help them. Almost 50 years ago an “intellectual” element of our society thought poverty could be defeated with wealth. It was thought that taking 1.9% or our gross national product (wealth) and applying it to the poverty in the United States that poverty would be no more. And so the “Great Society” was initiated. 50 years later we are now transferring more than 5 times what was believed to be necessary. The result is not only is there still poverty – it is measurably worse. The better, smarter, richer and stronger were and still are wrong. Their effort is a sad failure – their wisdom is foolishness.

The truth is that wealth cannot end poverty. The strong cannot protect the weak. The intelligent cannot end illiteracy. History is filled with foolish efforts that have always ended in failure. Those that thought themselves strong have all fallen – in the end they cannot even protect themselves. In short even the strong are brought down, become feeble and die – there is not one exception to the G-dless. The lesson that should be learned about the birth of Christ is lost. Those that think they know better – if anything they only lengthen the suffering and make it worse with a false hope. They only make a bad situation worse.

Jesus said that if we continue to learn from him, follow his wisdom we become his “disciples” and that we will know the truth and the truth shall make us free. That truth is that everyone can help somebody else. Even in poverty the widow can help and contribute to others. Just as we all will sometime be in need of help we all will have opportunity to help. No one is exempted.

Do not believe that the weak, the sick, the poor and the uneducated are lesser as some try to teach for they can help and do help others and their efforts should not be scoffed, discounted or turned away. The truth is that only in your poverty can you help those in poverty. This is why G-d condescended from his majesty, suffering even unto the scorn of those that thought the only deliverance from poverty is wealth and the foolish pride of those that think they are better and because they are better or when they are better can there be help.

The Traveler

[Annabelli]

God is a good example of godliness. Priesthood vrs Priestcraft is a good example of godliness.

If God asked me to live on a planet with a Godlike prophet would I do it? Would this be for 90+/- years? Would it come with the free agency? How many trial offers will I get? Should I take out an extended service policy? If I choose the Weakest Package, can I upgrade later? I don't do business through prayer. Send me a vision and I'll look it over. Sorry, I just need to check out your godliness. It's just one of those "too good to be true offers." I'm going to get a body and eternal life for "how much?"

[Elphaba]

Traveler,

Your blathering is nonsense. Fifty years ago poverty, along with every other indicator of wellness, including literacy and starvation, was much worse than it is today.

Also, why don’t you just start every post that you’re directing at me with the word “Godless” and just get it out of the way. The way you just insert it, obviously as a jab at me, with no real purpose, is ridiculous.

You remind me so much of the people I used to go to church with. We would sit in class on Sunday, talking about charity and how to be charitable. The lesson would discuss how to give, and how the gift was only charitable if it was anonymous.

People would discuss their various “gifts,” and how they had given them anonymously, and I would often think to myself how their gift wasn’t anonymous at all. They had always left a clue as to their identity, obviously hoping the recipient would guess who had left it.

I was no different. I wanted credit for any “gift” I had given. I wanted my friend to know it was from me, and to be happy I had done this for him or her.

The bottom line? I seriously could not imagine giving an anonymous gift, and I never heard a truly “anonymous“ charitable story in all my time as a member of the Church. This was certainly because I was young, and left the church in my mid-twenties. I have no doubt there are stories of true charity, but that I was just too young to have heard them.

But to me, “anonymous” was literally a waste of time! What was the purpose if you couldn’t get the credit?

Over the years I never stopped wondering why the gift had to be anonymous, even when I was no longer a member. And the day did come when I understood. And with that understanding came the realization that anonymity meant everything! Without it, there was no gift.

Without anonymity, there was no true charity.

With this realization came the understanding that anonymity meant I had no right to casually talk about these gifts. People were involved. People who deserved to be honored and treated with dignity. To talk about our discussions would be an insult to those who had given me the gift, and while they were heroic, they often could not bear the insult. If I were the cause of this pain, I could not bear it. To me, this would be immoral. So I will not talk.

It also meant I had no right to pigeonhole what these people had to tell me. We all have preconceived ideas of why a person ends up in poverty. Your post was full of them. And that is a sure sign that you are not ready for the gift a person in poverty can give you.

The truth is every person's story varies in a million different ways. Until you can comprehend that, you are not ready for the gift a person who lives in poverty has to give you. Until you can separate what you expect to hear from what you are going to hear, you will only cause harm.

Because until that time, you will torture their truth to fit your truth, and you will make an abomination of their gift. And I can tell that is what you would do right now, because your post was full of judgments about people and their intent, things you have no way of knowing anything about! You think you have the knowledge to judge another person, and you do not.

Until you understand this, you do not have the right to these people's gifts.

I agree that people who live in conditions you don’t understand, such as poverty and illness, have much to teach you. And if they decide to teach you, they will have given you a precious gift that will change you forever, if you let it.

But to let it, you have to stop talking about them as if you already understand something.

And unless you stop talking about them, you will insult and demean those who would give you this gift before they have a chance to do so.

I guarantee you, the way you talk about the “weak” right now, you are not ready for their gift.

Stop talking about them!

A word of wisdom from the “Godless.”

Elphaba

[a-train]

So that is why we have a Santa Claus!! It is the only way the parents can anonymously give to their children maintaining true charity!!!

-a-train

[tiancum]

I admit I do think i am better than others at times. How sad is this, that the people I think I am better than are those that would hurt others with high disregard. I have no desire to "HELP" those people. Because most of the time, they do not want to be helped. They see themselves as better, more righteous, Blah blah blah. They can never admit they are wrong and often, when they are forced to apologize to save face, usually goes something like....."i am sorry you thought i was being mean", or "I am sorry you got offended."

On the other hand, pertaining to charity. I try to see always that they are my equal, as humans. I am not better but simply in a better circumstance financially, sometimes.

Do not believe that the weak, the sick, the poor and the uneducated are lesser as some

I am a beggar too. I need much that I cannot provide for myself. I might beg for different things, (well actually it's been money of late) But I have learned how powerful asking is.

I see the beggar as simply someone hungry for something he does not know how to get.... Whether it be money, love, knowledge, spirituality, hope, faith. I think there is something noble about begging, because it is saying that we are not too proud to ask. Asking is key.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

Your blathering is nonsense. Fifty years ago poverty, along with every other indicator of wellness, including literacy and starvation, was much worse than it is today.

Also, why don’t you just start every post that you’re directing at me with the word “Godless” and just get it out of the way. The way you just insert it, obviously as a jab at me, with no real purpose, is ridiculous.

You remind me so much of the people I used to go to church with. We would sit in class on Sunday, talking about charity and how to be charitable. The lesson would discuss how to give, and how the gift was only charitable if it was anonymous.

People would discuss their various “gifts,” and how they had given them anonymously, and I would often think to myself how their gift wasn’t anonymous at all. They had always left a clue as to their identity, obviously hoping the recipient would guess who had left it.

I was no different. I wanted credit for any “gift” I had given. I wanted my friend to know it was from me, and to be happy I had done this for him or her.

The bottom line? I seriously could not imagine giving an anonymous gift, and I never heard a truly “anonymous“ charitable story in all my time as a member of the Church. This was certainly because I was young, and left the church in my mid-twenties. I have no doubt there are stories of true charity, but that I was just too young to have heard them.

But to me, “anonymous” was literally a waste of time! What was the purpose if you couldn’t get the credit?

Over the years I never stopped wondering why the gift had to be anonymous, even when I was no longer a member. And the day did come when I understood. And with that understanding came the realization that anonymity meant everything! Without it, there was no gift.

Without anonymity, there was no true charity.

With this realization came the understanding that anonymity meant I had no right to casually talk about these gifts. People were involved. People who deserved to be honored and treated with dignity. To talk about our discussions would be an insult to those who had given me the gift, and while they were heroic, they often could not bear the insult. If I were the cause of this pain, I could not bear it. To me, this would be immoral. So I will not talk.

It also meant I had no right to pigeonhole what these people had to tell me. We all have preconceived ideas of why a person ends up in poverty. Your post was full of them. And that is a sure sign that you are not ready for the gift a person in poverty can give you.

The truth is every person's story varies in a million different ways. Until you can comprehend that, you are not ready for the gift a person who lives in poverty has to give you. Until you can separate what you expect to hear from what you are going to hear, you will only cause harm.

Because until that time, you will torture their truth to fit your truth, and you will make an abomination of their gift. And I can tell that is what you would do right now, because your post was full of judgments about people and their intent, things you have no way of knowing anything about! You think you have the knowledge to judge another person, and you do not.

Until you understand this, you do not have the right to these people's gifts.

I agree that people who live in conditions you don’t understand, such as poverty and illness, have much to teach you. And if they decide to teach you, they will have given you a precious gift that will change you forever, if you let it.

But to let it, you have to stop talking about them as if you already understand something.

And unless you stop talking about them, you will insult and demean those who would give you this gift before they have a chance to do so.

I guarantee you, the way you talk about the “weak” right now, you are not ready for their gift.

Stop talking about them!

A word of wisdom from the “Godless.”

Elphaba

Okay - according to the senses in 1960 what was the break down of the demographics of the poor in the United State of America, how much was spent by government programs and what were those same demographics in 2000? Let me help you - In 1960, single parent familes made up less than 30% of the poverty needs. In 2000 there is a big jump in poor families with single parents - over 60% of all of poverty. Also we learn that crime among the poor increased and that education proformance decreased. I am not talking about just increases in numbers I am talking about percentages of the total population.

I am sorry I do not consider that kind of results as beneficial. Tell me what demographics are you counting to show that there is less poverty in the USA? I would also like to know what social program for the poor - anywhere in the world (over 50 years old) that you consider successful.

I would also ask - what has been your bold contribution to end poverty? - Voting for Democrats?

The Traveler

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Okay - according to the senses in 1960 what was the break down of the demographics of the poor in the United State of America, how much was spent by government programs and what were those same demographics in 2000? Let me help you - In 1960, single parent familes made up less than 30% of the poverty needs. In 2000 there is a big jump in poor families with single parents - over 60% of all of poverty. Also we learn that crime among the poor increased and that education proformance decreased. I am not talking about just increases in numbers I am talking about percentages of the total population.

Traveler, what's your point? ARe you suggesting that programs offering assistance to the poor led to crime? To more single parent families? You seem to be suggesting a linkage that, imho, is highly suspect. Jesus' program of assistance was real simple. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the shut-ins.

I am sorry I do not consider that kind of results as beneficial. Tell me what demographics are you counting to show that there is less poverty in the USA?

I'm not sure that your #s showed that poverty had increased or decreased. Rather, you cited stats that showed increased crime amongst the poor, and that broken families and illegitimacy are on the rise.

I would also like to know what social program for the poor - anywhere in the world (over 50 years old) that you consider successful.

Any program that feeds the poor, clothes the naked, leads to visitation of the shut-ins, and justice for the widoes and orphans.

I would also ask - what has been your bold contribution to end poverty? - Voting for Democrats?

A little on the spicy side here, eh?

Jeb Bush somehow managed to be Republican and donate his time to mentor a teenager. Exercising love crosses the political aisle--or at least it should.

[hanne_line]

In most parts of the country...not all...but most...nobody should have to starve or freeze. There are shelters and there are soup kitchens. If we give the handout because we have nothing else to give, perhaps we don't need to give anything at all? Knowing that a soup kitchen and shelter are within 10 minutes walk, and seeing the "homeless vet needs a few bucks" sign, I'm inclined to think my gift may do more harm than good. Maybe I'm too cold-hearted about this, but handouts are, at best, very inefficient helps, imho.

Thank you prison, that is what I wanted to say

Hanne Line

[Elphaba]

Okay - according to the senses in 1960 what was the break down of the demographics of the poor in the United State of America, how much was spent by government programs and what were those same demographics in 2000?

I couldn’t care less. That was not the question.

The question was “Has the poverty level declined in the last fifty years? The answer is yes, it has.

You claimed that there had been no change from fifty years ago until today, and you are wrong.

Let me help you - In 1960, single parent famlies made up less than 30% of the poverty needs. In 2000 there is a big jump in poor families with single parents - over 60% of all of poverty.

This does not address the question, which is has the poverty level declined in the last fifty years? The answer is it has.

I do not deny your statistics are disheartening.

Also we learn that crime among the poor increased

Again, you’re not addressing the question, which I’ve answered already.

Also, crime increased along all races, although crimes committed by the African American population was much higher than the white population.

However, I could not find any data that specifically said the crime rate amongst the poor increased. I realize the majority of the poor population was African American, and therefore it would be easy to extrapolate that the crimes were being comitted by the poor population. I don't deny this. I just could not find any data one way or the other. But I would concede the point.

The crime rate did rise dramatically in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and it reached its peak around 1990. And then, an interesting phenomenon occurred.

Around 1991 crime levels dropped dramatically even though they had been forecast to rise to such a level that law enforcement felt it would be inadequate to cope with it.

When the crime levels dropped so significantly, no one could explain it, though everyone, especially law enforcement was obviously very relieved.

So why do you think the crime levels dropped?

Interestingly, eighteen years earlier, in 1973, Roe v. Wade became law.

education proformance decreased.

Do you just make this up as you go? Because your statement is outrageous, and frankly, offensive. Anyone with a modicum of basic American history would know it is absurd.

The fact is, children living in poverty fifty years ago and the subsequent decades are the major benefactors of programs to help the poor. Educational programs were a priority in these programs.

In fact, prior to these programs, these children rarely got an education. Of those who did, the quality of their education was so substandard it was obscene. And that didn’t change for decades.

From 1960 to 2000, SAT scores on average went up 20 points. Additionally, high school dropout numbers went down fourteen percent.

More encouraging, more students from these populations have received, and are getting college degrees today than ever before.

Your claim that education performance decreased is insulting.

(Speaking of education, since you brought it up, you might want to run a spell check, and then edit your posts for spelling and grammar errors before posting them. Your errors are so numerous I hardly think you are in a position to comment on someone else’s education performance, especially when it‘s obvious your comments are based on your own bias, and not facts.)

I am not talking about just increases in numbers I am talking about percentages of the total population.

This comment makes no sense.

I am sorry I do not consider that kind of results as beneficial.

So what? It doesn’t matter whether you think they are beneficial or not.

The question is did the poverty level decline in the last fifty years (although we‘re really talking about the last forty years, since that‘s what all the data measures). The answer is yes, it did.

Tell me what demographics are you counting to show that there is less poverty in the USA?

No. I’m not going to go back and look at all of the references I used just to make up a list of every demographic just for you. Suffice it to say I used every demographic available that addressed poverty levels in the last forty and fifty years.

I would also like to know what social program for the poor - anywhere in the world (over 50 years old) that you consider successful.

Insisting the program be over fifty years old makes your question ridiculous, and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

Many of the social programs implemented have been successful when looked at within the fifty-year window.

For example, President Johnson‘s “War on Poverty,” was one of the greatest success stories in the history of America.

Lasting from 1961 to 1969, it was the most dramatic poverty reduction in the history of America, lowering poverty 6.61 percent.

When looked at within smaller timeframes, the success has been erratic. But as I said previously, all indicators of wellness in the US are higher today than they were fifty years ago.

I would also ask - what has been your bold contribution to end poverty? - Voting for Democrats?

Absolutely!

Every year a Democrat has been in office, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, the poverty level has gone down.

Every year a Republican has been in office, with the exception of Richard Nixon, the poverty level has gone up.

So yes, despite your sneering, voting the Democratic ticket clearly has been successful in lowering the poverty level while voting Republican has had the opposite effect.

Since you asked me, I’ll ask you. What has been your contribution to end poverty? Voting for Republicans? Why would you do that when every time a Republican is in office the poverty level rises?

Or is it your presumption that those in poverty can remain so because they will be rewarded in heaven? Based on your past comments, they’re not worth helping in a godless world, so I assume that‘s your justification.

Elphaba

[Old Tex]

For a LDS member, the easiest way to help those in need and remain annonymous is to contribute to the Fast Offering fund at the ward level, or to work at the Bishop's Storehouse. Every dollar contributed, and every hour donated, goes directly to helping those who need it most, and that includes non LDS members as well as LDS members. I was the one who wrote the checks in our ward for 12 years and can tell you that a lot of people receive help through that program.

[Traveler]

For a LDS member, the easiest way to help those in need and remain annonymous is to contribute to the Fast Offering fund at the ward level, or to work at the Bishop's Storehouse. Every dollar contributed, and every hour donated, goes directly to helping those who need it most, and that includes non LDS members as well as LDS members. I was the one who wrote the checks in our ward for 12 years and can tell you that a lot of people receive help through that program.

Well stated Old Tex. It has been my experience that activity in the programs you have suggested tends to create a spirit within the participant that is unlikely to be critical of LDS members and leaders. In a conversation I had with Ed Decker I was surprised to learn of his criticism of such programs and his lack of activity in such things when he was a member.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

Well stated Old Tex. It has been my experience that activity in the programs you have suggested tends to create a spirit within the participant that is unlikely to be critical of LDS members and leaders. In a conversation I had with Ed Decker I was surprised to learn of his criticism of such programs and his lack of activity in such things when he was a member.

Your post would have been much more meaningful had you just written about your experience and left it at that. Why the need to mention someone who did not share your beliefs, or experience the same spirit, that you did?

I mention this because you‘ve done this a few times, often with me as your example of godlessness.

Clearly the implication in this post is that you were spiritually superior to Decker. Do you not see how self-righteous this is?

Elphaba

[Traveler]

Okay - according to the senses in 1960 what was the break down of the demographics of the poor in the United State of America, how much was spent by government programs and what were those same demographics in 2000?

I couldn’t care less. That was not the question.

The question was “Has the poverty level declined in the last fifty years? The answer is yes, it has.

You claimed that there had been no change from fifty years ago until today, and you are wrong.

Let me help you - In 1960, single parent famlies made up less than 30% of the poverty needs. In 2000 there is a big jump in poor families with single parents - over 60% of all of poverty.

This does not address the question, which is has the poverty level declined in the last fifty years? The answer is it has.

I do not deny your statistics are disheartening.

Also we learn that crime among the poor increased

Again, you’re not addressing the question, which I’ve answered already.

Also, crime increased along all races, although crimes committed by the African American population was much higher than the white population.

However, I could not find any data that specifically said the crime rate amongst the poor increased. I realize the majority of the poor population was African American, and therefore it would be easy to extrapolate that the crimes were being comitted by the poor population. I don't deny this. I just could not find any data one way or the other. But I would concede the point.

The crime rate did rise dramatically in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and it reached its peak around 1990. And then, an interesting phenomenon occurred.

Around 1991 crime levels dropped dramatically even though they had been forecast to rise to such a level that law enforcement felt it would be inadequate to cope with it.

When the crime levels dropped so significantly, no one could explain it, though everyone, especially law enforcement was obviously very relieved.

So why do you think the crime levels dropped?

Interestingly, eighteen years earlier, in 1973, Roe v. Wade became law.

education proformance decreased.

Do you just make this up as you go? Because your statement is outrageous, and frankly, offensive. Anyone with a modicum of basic American history would know it is absurd.

The fact is, children living in poverty fifty years ago and the subsequent decades are the major benefactors of programs to help the poor. Educational programs were a priority in these programs.

In fact, prior to these programs, these children rarely got an education. Of those who did, the quality of their education was so substandard it was obscene. And that didn’t change for decades.

From 1960 to 2000, SAT scores on average went up 20 points. Additionally, high school dropout numbers went down fourteen percent.

More encouraging, more students from these populations have received, and are getting college degrees today than ever before.

Your claim that education performance decreased is insulting.

(Speaking of education, since you brought it up, you might want to run a spell check, and then edit your posts for spelling and grammar errors before posting them. Your errors are so numerous I hardly think you are in a position to comment on someone else’s education performance, especially when it‘s obvious your comments are based on your own bias, and not facts.)

I am not talking about just increases in numbers I am talking about percentages of the total population.

This comment makes no sense.

I am sorry I do not consider that kind of results as beneficial.

So what? It doesn’t matter whether you think they are beneficial or not.

The question is did the poverty level decline in the last fifty years (although we‘re really talking about the last forty years, since that‘s what all the data measures). The answer is yes, it did.

Tell me what demographics are you counting to show that there is less poverty in the USA?

No. I’m not going to go back and look at all of the references I used just to make up a list of every demographic just for you. Suffice it to say I used every demographic available that addressed poverty levels in the last forty and fifty years.

I would also like to know what social program for the poor - anywhere in the world (over 50 years old) that you consider successful.

Insisting the program be over fifty years old makes your question ridiculous, and I’m not going to waste my time on it.

Many of the social programs implemented have been successful when looked at within the fifty-year window.

For example, President Johnson‘s “War on Poverty,” was one of the greatest success stories in the history of America.

Lasting from 1961 to 1969, it was the most dramatic poverty reduction in the history of America, lowering poverty 6.61 percent.

When looked at within smaller timeframes, the success has been erratic. But as I said previously, all indicators of wellness in the US are higher today than they were fifty years ago.

I would also ask - what has been your bold contribution to end poverty? - Voting for Democrats?

Absolutely!

Every year a Democrat has been in office, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, the poverty level has gone down.

Every year a Republican has been in office, with the exception of Richard Nixon, the poverty level has gone up.

So yes, despite your sneering, voting the Democratic ticket clearly has been successful in lowering the poverty level while voting Republican has had the opposite effect.

Since you asked me, I’ll ask you. What has been your contribution to end poverty? Voting for Republicans? Why would you do that when every time a Republican is in office the poverty level rises?

Or is it your presumption that those in poverty can remain so because they will be rewarded in heaven? Based on your past comments, they’re not worth helping in a godless world, so I assume that‘s your justification.

Elphaba

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hee hee hee hee hee!!! Your post about poverty is so funny I just cannot stop laughing. Oh my – excuse me while I try to get my composure. Ha ha ha. Woops – sorry about that. I will try to be serious despite the humor here.

There is a talk show host (Michael Savage) that claims that liberalism is a “mental disorder”. But then no good Democrat has ever let facts stand in the way of propaganda – All a Global Warming.

Let me help you with some facts. First, Johnston was not president from 1961 to 1969. John F. Kennedy was president until November of 63 and the program for poverty under Kennedy was called “The Great Society”. Johnston did not change the ideal or the basic economic principles of the program when he changed the name (for propaganda purposes) to the “War on Poverty”.

So to help with facts I will quote from Alan B. Batchelder’s book “The Economics of Poverty”. Why – because it was written in 1966 in the middle of what you think is the great economic revolution – launched by the Democrats to save our economy and abolish Poverty.

The first quote is from chapter 4 (Through the Years with Poverty” page 38:

“These statistics, freed from the influence of price changes, indicate that the decline in American poverty, no matter how it may be defined, has been persistent if not uniform during the period from 1929 to 1962”.

Make note that even after the great depression was over and World War Two was over the decline of American Poverty continued in steady decline.

There are other publications I could quote but the point is simple – even adjusting for the depression – from the standpoint of strict economics – if the government did nothing to change anything; the American society had every hope to believe that the pain of poverty would continue to decrease.

Quoting now from Chapter 5 “The Pie we Share” page 50”

“For example, the United states would have had no poverty in 1963 if $11.5 billion (1.9% of Gross National Product) had been transferred from the well-to-do to the peopled labeled poor by SSA criteria.”

Now let us see what the Democrats (and Republicans) have done mucking around with the American Pie? Anyone can Google for the government statistics. You will find that in the year 2000 we spent about 700 million on government social programs for the poor (excluding Social Security – which is very important to note). That my friends, is roughly 7% of the gross national product. This means that we are spending almost 3 and ½ times the amount today that was needed to end poverty in 1963. Keep in mind this is not just in dollars this is in the total pie of American economics and who gets what. Now looking at other government stats we discover that adjusted for all the economic nonsense the geniuses can figure up – the working Americans have doubled their productivity during this same time span – which means the pie is actually twice as large per capita today as it was in 1963 – which means that it is really costing us 7 times as much productivity per person today to deal with poverty than it did in 1963. That is not improvement to reduce poverty to any one lacking a mental disorder. And are the poor really that much better off – needing less health care, housing, special education and other things moving forward?

Now a look at real facts will show that things are much worse than just what these simple stats tell us. For example: In 1963 the public education system of the United States was the highest and best of all the industrial nations of the world. Today the public education system of the United States is dead last among the industrial nations of the world – that is not going to help the poor or anyone else for that matter. Of course this is not just the Democrats to blame – George Bush and the Republicans are just as much to blame or more so – All a “No child left behind”.

My point is that the two parties of the American political seen took a system that was not broke – that was making historical strides to reduce poverty and turned the trend around 180 degrees and created a program that is both accelerating out of control costs and increasing every demographic that contributes to the root causes of poverty that there is.

The sad thing is that there is not a candidate running the president in either party (including our good friend Mitt) that seems to have a clue what to do next. They are all proposing that add to the madness that created the problem to start with. Ragan had it right when he said “Government is not the solution, government is the problem”.

[Elphaba]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hee hee hee hee hee!!! Your post about poverty is so funny I just cannot stop laughing. Oh my – excuse me while I try to get my composure. Ha ha ha. Woops – sorry about that. I will try to be serious despite the humor here.

I’m glad to give you such a good laugh. You do an especially good impression of Santa Claus at the mall.

There is a talk show host (Michael Savage) that claims that liberalism is a “mental disorder”. But then no good Democrat has ever let facts stand in the way of propaganda – All a Global Warming.

Yes, I know who Michael Savage is. I understand your point of view much better now.

By the way, in my opinion, Michael Savage is a reprehensible human being.

Let me help you with some facts. First, Johnston was not president from 1961 to 1969. John F. Kennedy was president until November of 63 and the program for poverty under Kennedy was called “The Great Society”. Johnston did not change the ideal or the basic economic principles of the program when he changed the name (for propaganda purposes) to the “War on Poverty”

Thank you very much for this correction. I mean that sincerely. I agree that it was very irresponsible of me to not be more careful with my dates and presidents. By the way, the correct spelling is “Johnson.”

So to help with facts I will quote from Alan B. Batchelder’s book “The Economics of Poverty”. Why – because it was written in 1966 in the middle of what you think is the great economic revolution – launched by the Democrats to save our economy and abolish Poverty.

<snip>

Quoting now from Chapter 5 “The Pie we Share” page 50”

“For example, the United states would have had no poverty in 1963 if $11.5 billion (1.9% of Gross National Product) had been transferred from the well-to-do to the peopled labeled poor by SSA criteria.”

Why in the world would you quote from a book written in 1966 when the question was has the poverty rate declined in the last fifty years? That is from 1957 to 2007, not 1957 to 1966. All of your information is irrelevant to any claims I made.

Now let us see what the Democrats (and Republicans) have done mucking around with the American Pie? <snip>That is not improvement to reduce poverty to any one lacking a mental disorder. And are the poor really that much better off – needing less health care, housing, special education and other things moving forward?

You are fixated on what the government spends on poverty programs. I made no claims about government spending. The only claim I made was that poverty had declined in the last fifty years, and it has. All of the above information is irrelevant to any claims I made.

Now a look at real facts will show that things are much worse than just what these simple stats tell us. For example: In 1963 the public education system of the United States was the highest and best of all the industrial nations of the world.

Did that include spelling and grammar courses where you lived? Just wondering.

I would like to see a reference that the US‘s education system was “the highest and best of all industrial nations of the world“; however, I will grant you it was comparable, that is, as long as you were white!

However, if you were not white, for example if you were an African American child living in the poorest districts in the South, the public education system was appalling, and to ignore that fact is offensive. Especially since I have already pointed it out to you!

Segregation had only been ruled unconstitutional in 1954, and in the South that meant nothing to the white communities as far as their attitudes. The relative quality of education for black children was constantly being reduced by school boards, including reductions in the black/white ratio of per pupil expenditures on instruction, length of the school year, teacher salaries and substantial increases in class sizes. To say that in 1963 these children were the recipients of public education that was “the highest and best of all the industrial nations of the world” is outright nonsense.

An indicator that this population benefitted from poverty programs is that in 1950 only 1.9 percent of black males and 2.6 percent of black females 25-64 years of age were college graduates. By 1997 the rates had climbed to 16.3 and 16.5 percent.

Do you think you can remember to include these children in your claims about the “best educational system in the industrialized nations” claims from now on? To ignore them is obscene, and you’ve already done so once.

Today the public education system of the United States is dead last among the industrial nations Of the world – that is not going to help the poor or anyone else for that matter. Of course this is not just the Democrats to blame – George Bush and the Republicans are just as much to blame or more so – All a “No child left behind”.

My point is that the two parties of the American political seen took a system that was not broke – that was making historical strides to reduce poverty and turned the trend around 180 degrees and created a program that is both accelerating out of control costs and increasing every demographic that contributes to the root causes of poverty that there is.

The sad thing is that there is not a candidate running the president in either party (including our good friend Mitt) that seems to have a clue what to do next. They are all proposing that add to the madness that created the problem to start with. Ragan had it right when he said “Government is not the solution, government is the problem”.

Thank you for the commentary. By the way, the correct spelling is “Reagan.”

Elphaba

[Annabelli]

Back in the 1960/70's, people could find a one room effiency to rent for $10 a week (kitchenette/bed & bath). Or you could spend $60 a month for a two bedroom apt/house. Minimum wage was $1.60 an hour but a lot of companies were paying around $3 an hour. A nice house cost around $8,000 and $30 worth of groceries lasted a month. Gasoline was about .30 cents a gallon and a new car cost $1,800. Most people were married and had large families. Jobs were plentiful and college was optional.

Patty Hurst believed people were starving in the streets of America. She didn't solve the problem but she did create another mouth to feed while she was in prison.

People choose their material priorities in this country. While 98% of my clothing can be machine washed there are people who have 98% dry cleaning only garments. But I think that it equals because I will be paying a lower cost of cleaning but replacing clothing frequently.

People who choose to be in debt live far lower down the totem pole than those who are debt free and live in poverty. That is to say that a negative balance is less than a zero balance. Ditto that a loan is to be paid and a hand-out is a grant.

Street vendors have to get a permit and pay to operate a profit business on the sidewalk. Why are the homeless allow to live on the same sidewalk for free? Of course the homeless may work a day or two here and there during the year and have taxes taken out of their pay. Few of them file income tax reports and I would assume that is the surplus we use for earned income credit.

One of the most famous homeless legends who lived in poverty and is viewed as a hero was Robin Hood. And who can forget the magical life of Peter Pan. Irregardless of lifestyle there is a sacrifice and trials for all.

[Palerider]

For a LDS member, the easiest way to help those in need and remain annonymous is to contribute to the Fast Offering fund at the ward level, or to work at the Bishop's Storehouse. Every dollar contributed, and every hour donated, goes directly to helping those who need it most, and that includes non LDS members as well as LDS members. I was the one who wrote the checks in our ward for 12 years and can tell you that a lot of people receive help through that program.

Several times as a Bishop I had people who needed help and for whatever reason I could not help them with Church funds....for those times I took the money right out of my own pocket and assisted them. I did it in a way that they did not know where the money came from. I often took a white envelope and put money in it and gave to someone and asked them to pass this on but do not mention who gave it to you.

[Elphaba]

Several times as a Bishop I had people who needed help and for whatever reason I could not help them with Church funds....for those times I took the money right out of my own pocket and asissited them. I did it in a way that they did not know where the money came from. I often took a white envelope and put money in it and gave to someone and asked them to pass this on but do not mention who gave it to you.

I have a hole in my wall now.

Elphaba

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>Several times as a Bishop I had people who needed help and for whatever reason I could not help them with Church funds....for those times I took the money right out of my own pocket and asissited them. I did it in a way that they did not know where the money came from. I often took a white envelope and put money in it and gave to someone and asked them to pass this on but do not mention who gave it to you.

I have a hole in my wall now.

Elphaba

its about time......I am getting tired of putting holes in my wall......LOL!!!!

[Traveler]

Why in the world would you quote from a book written in 1966 when the question was has the poverty rate declined in the last fifty years? That is from 1957 to 2007, not 1957 to 1966. All of your information is irrelevant to any claims I made.

Elphaba

I hoped you would understand that in 1963 the total cost to end poverty was 1.9% of the GNP. Your claim was that poverty is less today - we are spending 7% of our GNP on poverty in the year 2000. That means that poverty has increased. But let me give you a little bit more information. One of the major demographics (causes of poverty) is single parent families. In 1963, less than 15% of the families in the USA were headed by a single parent. Currently it is estimated that 60% of the children being born today will experience part of their life in a family headed by a single parent. Children do not need that kind of disruption.

Perhaps you would be so kind to tell me what part of poverty you have found to be in decline during the last 50 years. And from where you get your information. The Democrats – running for president? And if poverty is in decline – why do Democrats want to increase spending?

The Traveler