History
- Member for
- 20 weeks 16 hours
Get E-Mail Updates
maggiezee
Top Stories This Week
- 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - Unexpected Hope: The Vocation of the Church
by Jim Wallis 05-17-2012 - The 'Field of Panties': Sexual Violence and Immigrant Farmworkers
by Rachel Stone 05-18-2012 - Walter Wink: Remembrance and Reflection
by Bill Wylie-Kellermann 05-16-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Paul's Letter to the 1%
by Reta Halteman Finger 06-01-2012 - The Face of Hate
by Joanie Eppinga 06-01-2012 - Christianity As Impurity Cult, or It's Okay to Leave
by Tripp Hudgins 05-14-2012
by Ada María Isasi-Díaz and Elizabeth Palmberg 03-01-2012
An interview with theologian Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz on solidarity, public life, and the blessings that come when you really listen.
by Reta Halteman Finger 06-01-2012
The apostle's attack on elitism in Corinthian church and society speaks a clear message about inequality today.
by Kimberly Burge 04-01-2012
There are many reasons to abolish the death penalty. Innocents on death row may be the most compelling.
by Joanie Eppinga, Rebecca Barrett-Fox 06-01-2012
An interview by Joanie Eppinga with Rebecca Barrett-Fox, a scholar who finds the appalling, the unexpected, and the human inside Westboro Baptist Church.
Comments
I benefitted from affirmative action. I grew up in a rural town--i.e. a small town surrounded by small farms. I applied to an elite school because some guy I knew was going there. My interview was with a man who supervised a "small communities program". The school being in an urban area, attended by East Coast residents, wanted to broaden its scopes to include people from the state who lived in small towns like I did. I did OK in school but I am sure it was far from what was expected of many applicants. The school wanted to take a chance with me and others like me, so they helped balance the scales by admitting me through the progam.
I never once heard that my seat should have gone to someone more deserving.
No, I don't see that affirmative action is in any way discrimination one way or the other. It is a way of balancing the scales. Besides, maybe it is the "white" person who is wrongly taking the seat of a more deserving person of color.
Please see my response above
Hazel, I would like to move this conversation to my blog page on Word Press. I guess this is pretty much between you and me by now. And we aren't really addressing the topic on this page. Would you agree to that? I have posted this comment with my reply on that page. You can go there and see if that would be OK with you.If not, we will just return here and continue.
http://zc421.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/hazel-and-maggiezee/#comment-9
For me, when right wingers and left wingers discuss issues, there is a basic underlying disagreement of perspective. It is the same issue that makes a Supreme Court Justice right wing or left wing. I thought they were supposed to be neutral and unbiased. If that were true, it wouldn't matter what wing were in office when a Justice was appointed. Yet, a key concern about who is President is about who will be selected as a judge.
We all have our perspectives. Yours, concerning Valerie, is that she is appalled that we have poor people. Mine is that she saying that it is appalling that we have so many people who are poor when we live in a country so rich in resources. You and I don't agree that the employees at Walmart are treated unfairly, that the people working there and making a limited income do not necessarily choose that level of income, that despite the ability of the Walton family to pay a higher wage and otherwise enable others to live a more comfortable lifestyle, they choose to reap billions. If you ask me they are the ones with the choice. But you say the worker is the one with the choice. [We have had that discussion so I don't want to re-visit, just use it as an example of our different ways of thinking.]
So as long as your perspective is that Valerie is anti-poor, then I don't see how we can agree on much. I enjoy the polemics, for sure. But if we want to "solve" anything, the only way to do that is to find a common ground and go forward.
I would agree to be called materialistic if that means that I am concerned about the material well-being of others, i.e. a person's need for food, shelter, clothing, communication and healthcare. i am not materialistic in the way that suggests a love of money. And I am less interested in the sexual morals of a person than it seems right wing Christians are. I am concerned about the morality of a person's character and respect for other people, animals and the environment.
Does that help you understand my theology?
I think a major point is missing [unless I missed it] from the discussion. The term Evangelical Christian is used differently in the Body of Christ and outside of it. The emphasis within the Body is the stress on carrying the message of Jesus beyond the walls of the church building. Outside of the Body, I would say, is usually linked with right-wing politics. So as one commentor wrote she would mess with the survey by giving liberal views and call herself an Evangelical.
In any discussion, I try to remember that we do not speak the same language in the differnt settings.
These are not proof. They are republican leaning articles finding a way to try to get Pres Obama out of office.
You wrote: I think there is general agreement across the political spectrum
If you consider the political spectrum to be the repuplican party and its affiliates, then you are right. If you include both political parties and affiliates then you are wrong.
Here are some counter arguments to those you presented to me.
http://blogs.forbes.com/nickschulz/2011/07/05/how-effective-was-the-2009...
http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/did-stimulus-spending-qu...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-wor...
Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect.
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2011/5/23/stimulus_package_helps.htm
The difficulty in measuring the results of the economic stimulus, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out in February, is that there's nothing to compare it to. There's no alternative universe handy in which the stimulus package wasn't passed.
The stimulus package was a "monumental act both for the recovery of our cities as well as the recovery of an economy that was in a great deal of pain and sinking rapidly," said Mr. Sims. "We are reducing unemployment. The economy is beginning to grow again." But there are countless Americans who disagree.
I said if before and I will say it again. I do not have a problem with a person who is poor by choice. I have a problem when some one is poor due to our culture that prevents that person from being able to follow his or her desire to not be poor.
I do not find it necessary to tell you my opinion as you request. As I see it, that would only draw a line in the sand which can lead to an argument rather than a discussion. I prefer a discussion
My goal of this discussion with you is to learn from you. I admit I hope you learn from me but I realize I can only set a goal for myself, not someone else. And I am learning to think more about why I want to enter into a discussion with a person of obvious different views. I think it is important to not avoid it but am not sure how productive it is.
I have learned from you and will follow the links that you provided above to see if I can learn some more. I will dismiss articles liket the one you sent me from Forbes magazine about food stamps. The writer seemed to not consider any of multitude of factors that have impacted our use of foodstamps. He had his opinion and backed up by taking bits and pieces that suited his argument. Others will say," see, it is true food stamps are a negative influence on our society. This guys says it and 'proves' it". However there is no proof in his article except for what he chose to include.
I am the "poor" neighbor in a "poor" neighborhood, poor in this case being defined by being under median income.
I don't see those issues you raised as pertinent to the discussion because I don't call that redistribution of wealth. I can't say whether I am for redistribution of wealth because you and I define it differently.
Here are some quotes from Valeries blog. To me these comments don't sound like she IS looking down on the poor.
I am angry because this is a not necessary. I am angry that so many people are suffering, while our elected officials are playing games, unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to promote the general welfare of the nation.
People are falling into poverty because of pay cuts, reduced work hours, housing and child-care costs. They are also falling into poverty because of increased health-care costs.
Taxes on the rich are as low as they have been in decades. Raising taxes on the rich is not divisive, rather it is a necessary correction for an economic system that sends most of the money to the top.
So how is this looking down on the poor?
You are right. My focus has errantly been focused not on the point of the blog--about the number of people living below the median income. It has been about the people who don't choose to be poor.
do you have a citation for your numbers?
You may see her article that way that does not make it so. You can laugh at me because you think I am naive if I don't see it the way you do t.hat still doesn't mean you are right.
The key word is choice. If someone chooses a less lucrative lifestyle, good for them. Some people are poor not by choice but by the culural impact on their lives that prevent them from making a choice. When all people enjoy same advantages, then there will be nothiing to discuss.
What is your proof that Pres Obama has hindered the recovery? Believing that and knowing that are two different things
See my comment above.
1.. How does the Tea Party suggest we level the playing field?
2. You say either I am for those things and therefore for redistribution of wealth. Or I disagree with them and agree with you.
I do not like that you put your words in my mouth nor that because you agree with Ms Rands' one line then I am materialistic. Again I say, that no one can know another person's motives and to state that you do as fact know someone else's motives is faulty logic at the least.
In trying to follow your logic, I am stumbling over this statement: "You [i.e. me] resist a flat tax because you believe it would cause the poor to pay higher tax rates suggesting that the rich are paying the majority of taxes now " This statement cannot make sense. Of course the rich are paying the majority of the taxes. Even if everyone paid the same rate the rich would still be paying the majority of the taxes because they have the majoirity of the money.
but you justify increasing taxes exclusively on the rich because they are paying lower rates than the poor and middle class
Actually I am not following any of your logic. but I will try to answer what I think you are saying. Fact: Mitt Romney paid under 15% of his "income" in taxes. Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher rate than that. Mitt Romney of course pays more money though a lower rate. Why can't Mr. Romney who has more discretionary cash than Warren Buffet's secretary pay at least the same rate as Madame Secretary?
And why are so many people fighting the fight for the rich? They really do alright for themselves. In fact, how do you think they got the tax advantages
That's pretty funny that you suggest that I should reject Valeries attitude. Why can't I accept it. Again I think it is your misrepresentation of her attitude. You hear it one way, I another. what makes yours more right than mine?
Life is not extremes so no I don't think we should turn to the model you suggested
I think that the side of the worker should be heard when wages and benefits are considered. If you don't like that idea then we shall return to 6-7 day work weeks, 12 hour days and no safety measures. It was the people's voice that stopped those things, not the good will of the employer. To further prove the point, employers today continue to seek ways of getting more of the worker for the benefit of the employer and the detriment of the worker. Ever wonder why so many people are underemployed or require 2 jobs for a sustainable life?
Again, I am confused. You use the term evangelicals in comparison to liberals. I think you explained to me before why you think this is valid but I am not remembering. Either explain again or refer me to another location.
But here is where I think Ayn helps clarify our values. Evangelicals would say that we are obligated to help the neediest among us and we must share the gospel.
According to wikipedia: "Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. " so how did she help to clarify the value of sharing the gospel?
[I copied the phrase from Wikepedia and that is why reason and knowledge are underscored]
but they would not spend any time actually promoting it or show evidence that they are doing it.
By this, do you mean that on this web site they don't suggest options for where to go or otherwise offer opportunities to serve the poor.
We will never agree as long as you continue to assert that the liberals' idea of helping the poor is through redistribution of wealth implying a method that would rip it out of the hands of wealthy and give it without responsibility to people of lesset means. My idea of redistribution is that which you agreed to yesterday, leveling the playing field.
Again from Wikipedia: "She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
How is the tea party fighting for a level playing field?
In responses further down, I stated that such statements as "Let's be honest about what you are really driving towards!" are judgements not facts.
They merely fight to ensure that incomes and wealth aren't barriers to opportunities.
Ii the tea party is fighting for these issues then the only thing I see is different is your opinion of my motives
I replied in part to this below.
Can you be specific about which principles you have learned that the founding fathers built this republic? I cannot agree or disagree until I know what you are addressing.
Just because people in the tea party are convinced does not make it so. Any and all resources are slanted so if a thorough study has not been made that has slants in both directions, I would suggest being too convinced.
what is wrong with Walmart of any business moving jobs overseas As they reduce their cost structure we all benefit by an increased standard of living through the lower cost of goods.
How will anyone make money to buy the things that stores sell?
How bad does it have to get for people to not shop or work there? Why should the worker be at the mercy of the employer? Or would you rather work 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week for less than a liveable wage? That is how it was when the employer made all the decisions.
As I said to Hazel below, your opinion that affluent liberal belittle people who have chosen a simpler lifestyle is a judgement not a fact.
I don't like for you to decide how I look at people when you are seeing them through your eyes not mine. To say that I look down on people because they have a lower income than I do is a judgement that is not yours to make. Because that is how you see it, doesn't make it so.
I am not sure what your point is about the rest of your comment.
Thank you for the links. I will check them out.
I did wonder about the median income and after looking it up I am still not sure. I think it relates to income vs the number of people. so if you take all of the incomes and come up with a "median", the middle, the number of people who have an income lower than the median is more than 50% of the people.
I am not sure where you came up with your point being that all Americans are affluent by global standards. I agree that at least nearly all of us are but I don't see that in any of your other discussions.
Even though it is likely, does that mean I don't need to help the least among us?
It might be true that it is only being said to get the approval of the liberal base because every politician including our President is supported by those enjoying the lower taxes supported by Bush.
I don't agree that it wouldn;t help to solve part of the problem. Pres Obama says we all need to sacrifice. For some that is to tighten the belt for others it means to pay a little more in taxes.
Do you agree that Romney and others like him should only have to pay 14% while others are paying more?
What are the Biblical roots that the Tea party are rooted in?
I can say my liberal values are rooted in the Bible. I believe they are.
I don't agree with Ms Rand's evaluation of the liberal political philosophy. No person can know 100% what their own motives are. How can someone else be an expert on that for another person? She can say what she thinks a liberal's philosophy is built on but that doesn't make it so.
I think your bias is reading into what I am saying.
It is not awful for any one to choose a $42 vs 80, 000 annujal salary. I do not look down on the poor and lower class and I don't think I said anything to give that impression. How can I? I am probably in that category. And I don't feel sorry for myself because of it.
My point,that I repeat here after saying it in other posts, is for the playing field to be equal.
If someone can choose between those two or any other situation, bless them. It is when someone does not have the choice and is denied opportunity to make that choice that I have a problem. Sadly many people think that the playing field is level, that it is due to laziness or as you suggest choice that makes the person have a lower income.
In addition, $42,000 is considered a living wage, so the problem comes in when a person has to work at Walmart and other such jobs to try to support themselves and others.