Friday, January 4, 2008

Obama and Huckabee: Do These Winners Reflect You?

The following videos are of Barack Obama's and Mike Huckabee's victory speeches last night after winning the IOWA primaries. Obama was a semi-surprise, since many were expecting Mrs. Clinton to sweep the state and Huckabee was near miraculous, since the front runners were deemed to be Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson. Out of curiosity, I'd like to know what you all think of all the presidential candidates, who you're leaning towards, and what issues matter most to you. I think it would be a good learning experience for me (and maybe some readers) to gain some insight to who and what issues matter to people of faith. So, please, weigh in with your thoughts on these two first victors, their speeches, and any other thoughts you may have on the 2008 elections! Peace!












Here are the records, quotes, and ratings for both winners from On The Issues:
Huckabee
Obama

Here's an article from Sojourner's Jim Wallis on both candidates' victories and what our calling as a people of faith entails, no matter who ends up in the White House. Change Won In Iowa

26 comments:

catrina said...

I liked both of their speeches, but again it takes a whole lot more than words to bring change about. All hopefuls say the same things about crossing party lines and a unified america. It is hard to have hope that either can follow through. I think dems are scared of more of the same and repubs are scared of things changing to much. I'm spending way to much time online.

Tia Lynn said...

Oh Catrina! Step away from the computer!!! hehe.

I hear ya, rhetoric sounds nice, but unless it's accompanied by action, it's just a tool for false hope and political manipulation. I think its too early to tell whether either of these two particular candidates can or will follow through on what they say. We'll just have to wait and see. :)

Besides, politicians don't usually intitiate real change, but are pushed into change by social movements lead by the people....I don't put too much stock in any one single politician to "save" America. :)

Justin said...

Wow, I went to the ontheissues website and looked at Barack Obama's voting record for things like abortion and stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. (the things that matter the most to most evangelicals). I think its pretty hard to justify voting for someone like Obama when he clearly votes in favor of partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, etc. I know there are other issues that are important but as a Christian, its very hard to get past his views on abortion, stem-cell... Very informative website though. Thank you. I enjoy reading your blog. I found it through a link on a friends blog.

Tia Lynn said...

I hear ya justin. I do not agree with Obama's stance on abortion AT ALL. He's not for gay marriage, but for civil unions, which I actually support. I like him best out of the democrats for his stances on the war, affordable healthcare, and the poor. However, the only way I could see myself voting for him is if Giuliani got the republican ticket, because I will absolutely not be voting for him because he is both pro-choice and pro-war. Obama economic policies will reduce abortions, if neither candidates will appoint judges to outlaw it.

Anthony said...

Tia,
I am confused. You said that you agree with Obama's pro-abortion stance but then that you would not vote for Gulianni because of his abortion stance... could you please elaborate for me. I might be missing something.

God bless,
Anthony

Tia Lynn said...

Hey Anthony!

I think you misread...I do NOT agree with Obama's abortion stance at ALL. I am 100% pro-life. If both candidates end up being pro-choice, I will vote for the one whose economic policies will reduce abortions...which in the scenario b/t giuliani and obama, that candidate would be Obama. But he's not my first choice, although I do like him.

Mike L. said...

Being pro-life does not mean being anti-choice. The best way to reduce abortions is to leave it legal and make it rare by supporting unwed mothers with quality healthcare. Sweden has unrestricted access to abortion but a much lower abortion rate. Why? Because they have universal health care for those women and children. They did that without restricting womens rights.

In america, if a young woman has a child out of wedlock she is destined for a hard life and locked out of our society because of our public policy that favors the rich. Let's change that. Lets not force women to have babies then leave them out in the cold.

Don't get fooled by the conservative spin machine. They have spent 30 years convincing christians to vote for them just on the outside chance they may reverse row v. wade (wink wink) but then they use their power to rape our nation and turn it over to corporate greed and oil industry lobbyists. What have they done to reduce abortions? Not a damn thing! They acutally undid the child health care programs Jimmy Carter put in place in the 70s which would have reduced abortions. They stopped SCHIP again this year which would have helped unwed mothers keep their babies. Mandating morality is unamerican. Lets give people the tools to make good chioces and then support them when they do.

Do you understand what Huckabee and Ron Paul's UNfair sales tax would do to lower and middle class people? What percentage of Bill Gates income do you think he spends on items that would be taxed? Do you understand how that would be a regressive tax that overburdens the middle class who spend almost all of their income on taxable items?

Anonymous said...

22 Ways to be a good Democrat:

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans =
are
more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of
Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by
soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being =
homosexual
is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of =
federal
funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders =
how
to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own =
money
to make =93The Passion of the Christ=94 for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts =
of
the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain =
parts
of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too =
high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee,
Thomas Edison and A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very =
nice
person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in =
charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, =
but
a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the =
Chinese
government is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day =
off
on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."

Last but not least......

22. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right =
wing
conspiracy.

Tia Lynn said...

Anonymous, since you are so proud of your outright stereotyping and ignorant generalizations of nearly HALF THE COUNTRY that votes democrat, maybe you should consider signing your real name.... Not every democrat is a carbon copy of the far, far, left, just like not all republicans are carbon copies of the far-far right. Your simplistic analysis only halts any meaningful conversation or collaboration on points of common ground. I am an independent and hold views from both parties, so I might be harder to place in a box, which I’m sure will make your head implode.

I am both pro-life and against the death penalty. I hold to a strict just war theory, so I am against most war, especially preemptive ones. I believe big business and government should be good stewards of the environment. I do not support gay marriage, but I do support civil unions and believe gays should be allowed to serve in the military, oh, and treated like human beings. I am for education reform, so both rich and poor can have an equal starting point and opportunities to obtain the tools needed to live self-sufficient and productive lives. I believe in both individual responsibility and corporate responsibility, both individual flaw and structural injustice. I believe in the family and strong marriages. I don’t believe Christmas should be illegal, although forcing stores to say “Merry Christmas” is just as stupid as banning people from saying it. I believe both big business and government can be institutions of oppression and as people of faith, we should speak up for the most vulnerable in our society and keep government and business accountable to equality and justice. Republicans who tell the truth should not be in jail (huh?), and neither should lying sex offenders be in the white house...although let’s be honest and admit that the republican party has suffered from an alarmingly high rate of gross sex scandals (hi, mark foley, larry craig, ted haggard, Bob Alan, and Glenn Murphy Jr.!). I don’t like Hillary politically, but will not pretend to know her heart or engage in character assassination, because I have never met her, and most likely, neither have you. I believe in both the first and second amendments of the constitution and yet still think that both the NRA and ACLU are extremely corrupt organizations that only look out for their pet agendas by printing biased propaganda that makes it extremely difficult for any progress to be made or common ground to be found.
So, where do I fit into your extreme ideological dichotomy, as if far right and far left are the only two options to adhere to?

Hey Mike- thanks for writing that!

You are preaching to the choir man. If you have a minute, look under my label section on my side bar and read the posts listed under the abortion section. I feel almost exactly the same way you do, except I would favor Roe V. Wade being overturned, but I do not think for a second that most of the Republican candidates (except Huckabee) have any real conviction to do anything about it. Even Reagan (the model pro-life republican) signed the law that made abortion legal in CA before Roe V. Wade and appointed judges that clearly had no intention of overturning Roe V. Wade. Republicans have used the abortion issue to pin down the evangelical vote with little action to accompany their moral outrage (thanks Jerry Falwell). I also believe that if Roe V. Wade is overturned and none of the issues you mentioned are implemented, abortion will keep going on underground. A pro-life stance is no longer enough to get my vote—it must be accompanied with clear commitments to appoint pro-life judges and demonstrate concern for the poor. The largest group of women who get abortions are fifteen and two-thirds make less than 19,000 dollars a year. I must say, that I like Mike Huckabee because he does have a heart for the poor, even staunch democrats admire that about him. I have a clip of Huckabee on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart where he talks about how even though he firmly believes life begins at conception, it doesn’t end at birth and to be TRULY pro-life is to care for a child’s entire life—their healthcare, education, safe neighborhoods, access to a college education, clean air and water. Stewart even remarks that Huckabee sounds like a “liberal.” So, I find him to be very moderate. Based on his records, he really is a compassionate conservative, and while I do not agree with all his methods (very iffy on the fair tax thing too), I think of all the republicans, He is the most genuine, so I am considering him. But like I said, I don’t agree with his war policy. There are other reasons besides the abortion issue on why I am also iffy about Obama, but like him best out of the democrats, so we’ll see what happens. I’m still in the evaluation process. :) Come back again, you have some great insights!

Phew that was long one!

catrina said...

Mike I have known plenty of women who have had children out of wedlock and gone on to get masters degrees, highter education, or lucrative carriers. Some of them used govt assistance for a time to get through. The problem is that the way our system is set up it makes people dependent on the govt,and they are actually worse off because of it. It is a vicious cycle, and the govt is mostly to blame. You cited Sweden, you may be correct about lower abortions but is that percentage wide or just numbers? Recently 20/20 or some news show that I saw did a segment on the woman of Sweden, and a huge % of them work for and are dependent on the govt for practically everything from paychecks to childcare to retirement. When you have govt that gets this big you have loses to your personal liberties, it goes hand in hand because there has to be so many more rules and regulations and procedures to follow. We recently had Swedish engineers come to our house to conduct business with my husband. These were top engineers at a defense contracting company. They couldn't get over the size of my house and bedroom.lol (It was 14 by 15) My house was built in the 40's and was 2400sq ft. They complained that they only brought home 38 to 40% of their paychecks due to the income tax. That is how the women you describe are taken care of. Gas over there was $6 a gallon, they could only afford one car, their house was a townhouse the size of a double wide. They couldn't believe that my children were allowed to ride their scooters in my driveway w/o a helmet. (illegal to be w/o helmets on personal prop because of the universal/socialized healthcare. You could not go BAREFOOT in public outdoors over there except in designated areas for the same reason as mentioned above. They couldn't own any guns in the area they lived in. Over and over again they were amazed at the personal liberties that we are afforded, and over and over I was dismayed by how they as incredibly professional men had to live. When the govt controls so much you have to give up so much, and I for one want to be able to make the decision to go barefoot. You start letting the govt hand out medical care, education, etc you force them to regulate it, and that translates into restrictions which translates into lose of liberty. So not worth it.

Justin said...

You might want to check this website for abortion statistics.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

I know thats its a christian website. However, they get their stats from pro-abortion sources such as The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood.

keithandjennifer said...

Catrina!! Great post on the Swedish engineers! Very informative... Thanks

Terry said...

Quite a lively debate you have over here, Tia. I, like you, while not a democrat, don't fit neatly into a far left of far right box either. As to the issue of government being further expanded to provide social services: As a conservative Black American, born and raised in the 'hood (if you will), I know for ceratin that the government is wholly incapapble of doing a god job of distributing services to the poor in a way that doesn't promote irresponsiblity and dependency. I don't expect to change the views of anyone who commented here, but the proof is in the pudding. For me, this is not just a theoretical debate. I know of what I speak and my heart aches for the young people I know personally (some in my own family) who I have seen become a casualty of socialist policies. And every single person (many in my extended family as well) I know that pulled themselves up and broke the cycle, became successful, and started anew did it WITHOUT government handouts. Socialism, does not work. And I don't think there's a middle ground where socialism is concerned. The further we go down that road, the more we inhibit the God-given creativity and resourcefulness of the people we purport to help, and the more services we'll find that people seem to "need".

catrina said...

Terry, I don't know you but I loveth you. I am from DC and though I did not live in the inner city, I worked alongside org. that did. (housing projects, homeless shelters, inner city schools and prostitute ministries). So many times the aid that is intended to help only perpetuates the problem. I believe that necessity is the mother of invention, if you are always receiving a handout it stunts your God given abilities. Oh shoot gotta run, fighting children.

Tia Lynn said...

I am all about welfare reform, although the misconception that people WONT work and can comfortably live off welfare for the rest of their lives is just nonsense. After the 1996 welfare reform restrictions, I person receiving welfare (which is hardly anything) must be looking for work and can only be on welfare for five years THEIR ENTIRE LIVE....not exactly a lifetime of luxury handed to them. Over 2/3 of people who receive welfare do not even stay on it the full allotted time. Of course there will be lazy people who abuse welfare, but does that mean we penalize the single mothers, their children, and other poor people that really need some help? My thing is not so much welfare, but education and healthcare. Why should poorer people have to work SO much harder to get ahead and then endure poor education and lack of healthcare to boot? My aunt teaches in the inner-city of Trenton, one of the worst cities in the country, and she doesn’t even have textbooks for her children! She has to pay out of pocket to get supplies for all her kids. This is not uncommon in poorer inner-city schools. So, if they don’t even have text books, forget computers (which are increasingly becoming the cornerstone of most professions). Do you think this is fair that middle-class and rich children have the tools right under their noses to learn and be anything they want to be while poor, usually minority children are babysat in these schools, lacking any quality tools for education right from their start? Why shouldn’t government take a step to at least equalize education opportunities...this is hardly a “handout” that keeps people dependent on government, it is ensuring the tools needed for kids to succeed if THEY work hard for it.

I know that I am just a white girl with a semi-nice house now, but do not be fooled. I am the product of a dead beat father and sixteen year-old mother. We lived in the inner city and we were very poor until I hit high school, and even then, we struggled. I know what it’s like to wear the same worn out hole-ridden clothes everyday. I know what its like to be evicted because my mom couldn’t make rent. I was the only white girl in my class and saw the struggles of the community around me: the despair, the hopelessness, the defeat, the knowledge that people look down on you because of your social status, skin color, or neighborhood. There’s a lot of talk of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but let me tell you, that had it not been for my mom getting food stamps, we would NOT have made it. And there is no shame there, we needed it. We barely made it. And even when my mother (the hardest worker I know) could finally work because I was in school, she didn’t do it alone, nor could she have. Had it not been for her family network that finally stepped into help raise me and help provide, WE COULD NOT HAVE MADE IT. Do you know how many people aren’t fortunate enough to have family networks of support? Of course the answer is not just throwing money at the poor, that never works. But every human being (that is valuable and made in the image of God) should be able to receive adequate healthcare and should be at least given the opportunity to learn at a quality school. People who rise up from the projects to become rich are RARE and they usually end up giving back to the community BECAUSE IT IS SO UNFAIRLY HARD. There are a few healthcare plans out there that would NOT remove healthcare services from the private sector (so, fear not, they can go on making a disgusting profit off human illness) but the government would SEPARATELY provide grants and subsidies for needy families and children. Why would that be so terrible? Whose liberties would be compromised? You can still sling your guns, let your kids ride around helmet-less and barefoot. :) I think any effort to make healthcare more affordable for the lower-classes and their CHILDREN automatically gets labeled as SOCIALIZED, and we all know that is a naughty word—so we do not realize that there are an array of proposals to make healthcare affordable for real people without becoming communists. :)

catrina said...

Ok I'm back for a second and I agree with you Tia about education. I would say that it would be better however for states to run their education programs instead of the federal doing it. That way your taxes are being used for your schools and you have a vested interest in seeing them succeed. We absolutely should level the playing field when it comes to education, just because you live in a certain district should not entitle you to a better education. God says that the poor will always be among us, so we must never cast them to the wind. I think the ways in how we want to help are different. (not us personally) The healthcare system has to be completely changed or no one is going to be able to afford it. For the record my kids were on peachcare (govt assisted healthcare) for 5 yrs till we could afford our own.

Tia Lynn said...

Thank you, Catrina. And I would not be opposed to state-run funding, actually, that probably would be best because local governments are better acquainted with the specifics needs in their area. However, the funds for schools actually do come from the property taxes in the community: that is the problem. Nicer areas with suburbs and bigs houses have higher taxes and more funds for education. Inner-cities replete with apartment buildings, projects, and low-income housing as well as rural areas do not generate as much in property taxes and therefore the schools in those communities suffer from lack of funding. And I agree there are many different ways to go about rectifying the institutional injustices in schools and healthcare, that’s why the discussion at large in society about how to deal with these realities needs to become less polarized. We have to find common ground and work together, because really, it’s the poor that always end up with the short end of the stick.

Since you are more knowledgeable about Ron Paul than I am, how do his proposals work in favor of the poor? What are his suggestions about education and healthcare? I’d like to know.

Terry said...

If we can keep education as a state run entity rather than federal, I have no problem with better education funding. Better yet, giving more power to the local districts would be even better. One of the biggest problems facing education is the idea of far away government entities thinking that they know better than the parents and local teachers what's best. That's why our kids can't get a decent education. And while I'm all for accountability, I think this testing has gotten way out of hand and squeezed creativity right out of the scholl systems. I also have no problem with healthcare for those who TRULY need it. Not mandating a single payer system for every body. By the way, Tia, stop by soon.

Mike L. said...

There is a huge "myth" out there that we have some kind of welfare state with unemployed people kicking back getting wealthy without working (probably spread by the rednecks on Fox news). We are far from that. Tia is right about the welfare reform in the 90's. There is no welfare now, only temporary assistence for needy families (TANF).

If anyone here thinks that big corporations take care of us better than we take care of ourselves (that is what government is... it is you and me), then you are sadly mistaken. Do you really feel these insurance companies are thinking about our best interest? Do you have some way of removing insurance executives from office? NO. I know because I've consulted for fortune 500 hundred companies or many years. They have us by the balls. Most of us can't pursue our capitalist dreams because we are locked into the nightmare of insurance tied to employement. We need to untie insurance from employement so capitalism can flourish and small businesses can grow.

If you add your insurance payments to your taxes then you realize you ARE ALREADY paying more than other nations, it just isn't all labeled taxes and a big chunck ends up in the pockets of insurance companies not back into our healthcare or our government. A single payer system would stop the insurance companies from raping us and driving up costs.

Tia Lynn said...

Mike, I am loving having you weigh in, very intriguing thoughts, keep them coming!

I’d also like to point out that the money spent on welfare assistance is LESS than 2% of the federal budget and 0.15 of the federal budget is spent on foreign assistance, and only a tiny fraction of that sum is actually spent on bettering the lives of the poor. The U.S. is dead last in the amount of aid given both at home and abroad out of the 22 industrialized nations of the world. And I won’t even go into the money we reap from the world’s poorest countries through collecting unjust sky-high interest-clad debts. That to me, is unacceptable, for the richest, “moral” nation on earth. This idea that we are somehow on the cusp of some socialist society without liberties is hyped up.

catrina said...

Tia, as to where Ron Paul stands on education and health care, you can go http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm and find all the candidates records. They seem to be unbiased just stating records and facts. You should however delve further into some of his stances, for instance I had found some things he voted against concerning so I looked up his reasons for it to have better clarity.

Mike, insurance is the biggest rip-off in our country today. HMO's and such suck the life out of the american families. As to the welfare system, I agree that no one is getting rich off of it and I don't remember how that came into this discussion but you are correct. The govt cannot change peoples values and mentor them that is up to us.

Tia, while what you say about the US giving 1 tenth of 1% to the poor, I beg to offer a different view. Is it the Federal govt job or responsibility to use our money to help other people. The problem comes in when you have taxpayers money being used unconstitutionally to support things that people disagree with. YOu know my heart for the poor and orphaned of the world, but if I have the right to demand that US money go to Darfur then don't others have the right to demand US dollars also go to help those same people get abortions for their unwanted children. That is where I am starting to see the danger in making it the govt business to legislate morality and monies, because there is always the flip side to the aid and how that aid should be used. I also must say that the american PEOPLE themselves are the most generous in the world, and evangelical christians top the list according to an ABC study conducted last yr. World Vision, The 700 club(yikes), Voice of the Martyr, Save the Children,and tons of secular org. raise money to aid the poor. If we had more of our own money to put into the org. that we approved of then that would be freedom and that could rock the world. There are thousands of good causes out there (some not so good) but it is not the job of the federal govt to decide who gets it. When Clinton was in office and the Rwanda genocide was in full tilt the US sent millions of dollars of aid, the problem was that they would drop food and supplies from the air to villages below. The "bad guys" would watch the planes and determine where villagers were hiding out and then usually within 24 hrs those villagers were attacked and killed and the supplies stolen. How much better would it be to be able to give your money directly to people in these regions who are established and have the inside scoop on how and when the $ could be best used. Individuals have so much more power than the govt, look at those young guys that did the Invisible Children, they started something incredible with very little money to begin with. When you give people the freedom to do things like this I believe Gods creativity is released and there is more power in that than with any govt entity. Private orgs usually are able to do so much more.

keithandjennifer said...

My favorite quote of the week;;;;;

"probably spread by the rednecks on Fox news"

I am from Georgia and although the news broadcasters on Fox news look nothing like the rednecks I know, I thought that was FUnny.... Thanks Mike.

Tia Lynn said...

Catrina,

First I will begin with where I agree with you. You are 100% correct when you say that aid is ALWAYS more effective when distributed to local workers and charities, because they know the specific needs in their communities. Our attempts in the past were irresponsible because we were handing checks over to corrupt regimes without any system of accountability. However, that is changing thanks to the One Campaign, Jubilee 2000, and other advocacy groups that PARTNER with governments to ensure the any money given is used on education, health care, food, clean water, etc. And it IS working...And while I do believe the church (especially the prosperity gospel section) has been deplorable in pocketing the resources God has graciously given to minister to the rest of the world and needs to get on the ball, it most definitely IS the government’s responsibility to help the poor in other countries, and not just by increased aid, but through debt cancellation and trade reform. And here’s why:

We are partly to blame (along with other G-8) countries for keeping these places poor to begin with. Forget even for hundreds of years, white Europeans and Americans (when we came around) raped Africa’s land of its resources and strong men to enslave, beginning a ripple effect of broken families, broken spirits, war, devastation, etc. etc. Let’s just talk about the last fifty years....

Do you know that for every 1 dollar of AMERICAN governmental “aid” that is sent to Africa, 9 dollars comes back to the U.S. in debt service payments? We have played a huge role in setting up loan systems with such high interest rates that THIRD WORLD nations cannot even pay down the interest let alone the principle balance. We are holding the sons and daughters of Africa ransom for loans recklessly given over two generations prior to regimes that build themselves palaces, while their people starved on the side of the road. The descendents from latter group are now being held accountable, so we can get our money back. In many of these countries there is no money left over for education, healthcare, or technological advances to maintain enough food and clean water for people. So, not only do we have a responsibility as the richest nation in the world to give RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTABLE aid (check out ONE.ORG or DATA.ORG, to read about this process), but we also should be in the forefront in the movement on debt cancellation, which many American leaders are coming to realize. Rich nations also make it impossible for third world nations to stabilize their economy because of unequal trade laws.

Even Collin Powell, not exactly a liberal bleeding heart, said it is not only the right thing to do to help stabilize these countries, but the SMARTES, SAFEST, and CHEAPEST thing to do for our national security. In a place like Africa where is Islam is spreading faster and faster and extreme poverty breeds desperation, lack of education, and anger against the rich, it is a prime place (as we have seen in similar oppressed places within the middle east) for radical extremists to emerge. The entire world benefits from countries having access to education, healthcare, and enough food and water. And guess what? It is FAR cheaper to provide those things than it is to wait until things get so bad and out of control that we invade them by force and fight them. In light of the 12 billion dollar A MONTH war, it would only cost 2 billion for an entire YEAR to get the 800 million children around the world in need of an education.....I wonder how that would bode for national security?

There are so many more reasons on why the U.S. owes it to the poor of the world to ensure their survival, but I’ll stop there. Really, check out DATA.org and ONE.org to read all the reasons AND how government is NOW partnering with private organization to make sure that government aid is being used wisely....and read about the results it is reaping..................

catrina said...

I have read one. org when you mentioned it on another post, and yes these things are good and can help but you are missing the point of what I'm saying. Constitutionally we should never have been doing things like loaning money in the first place and as individuals we should be helping the poor next door and abroad. You can't use federal money to do this w/o lose of liberty. For instance I am disgusted that my tax dollars may pay for abortions, or be used to promote pornography through the arts, or that my money can be used for teaching evolution in schools as fact instead of theroy. This is the problem when the federal govt steps in to legislate healthcare, education, welfare. Did you understand my point about Sweden? some people would find that kind of living fine because they are taken care of, I find that lifestyle as restrictive and being stripped of my rights. You are correct about the loans and such, this is what RP calls blowback. We fund terrorist for a season and then we try to take them down in another. If we are trying to monetarily gain from loans out of 3rd world countries then that is deplorable. But lets say we erased all of their debt completely, right now clean slate for them, how are you going to regulate and control the corrupt govt in another country to use that money for food, healthcare and education. Seriously Tia I am not being a jerk but then you are right back to where you don't want to be and that is possible military presence to make good happen. We can't force other govts to become democracies and do right by their people. We tried in Rwanda, we tried in North Korea, Where does it end. If America doesn't do some serious in house cleaning this discussion won't even be necessary because there won't be any money to give anyway. Like most people in this country that live above their means and live paycheck to paycheck, so is our govt operating in the same way e are being so irresponsible with our money. I am not an Alan Greenspan or anything but just looking at our debt and our out of control spending I don't see how it is possible to keep increasing federal aid all over the world, not to mention that it is unconstitutional to do so. You can see the mess in New Orleans and that is in our own country, the federal govt can't even get there act together down there let alone face issues in Sudan where there is civil unrest and famine. Imagine if we operating the way the constitution intended even in the one area of income tax. If I hadn't had to pay income tax this last year I could have built and funded 4 schools in places like Tibet or Nepal or Haiti, and supplied them with curriculm that I approved of instead of being forced to give my money to an org that picks curriculum like "So you want to wear dresses" or "foreplay instead of all the way." Yes there would be people that kept spending and living the high life, but do I have the right to force them to give. I wish that this conversation was happening live instead of email because I think we could understand each other better like that. The US needs to clean up our messes and then keep our noses clean, but I see very little hope of that happening because it seems impossible to agree on the best way to go about it. For the record, I do not for one second have the attitude of let the poor suffer they deserve it. I am looking for a long term solution instead of a band aid, and I say this with all sincerity, the only true hope is Jesus but I definitley believe you have to put action to that not just words. Our voices and conversations are not enough and our hope in the govt is displaced hope.

Tia Lynn said...

Oh Catrina, I know you well enough to know that you are not the sort of person that despises the poor or aims to ignore them. And I hope that you understand that my “hope” does not lie with government, government ALONE will never accomplish anything long lasting, but we the people must call upon the government to help heal the harm they have done, to be accountable for their actions and the part they play in keeping the poorest nations on earth poor. Governments must work toward correcting the structural injustices the drive the cycle of poverty. But individuals, charities, churches, businesses, and governments all have a role to play. No one group is solely responsible for the world’s poor. I would never advocate a government only mentality, but they can’t get off scott-free either. I agree about out of control spending, but the aid we give domestically and internationally combined is less than 3% of the federal budget, this is not the spending that is breaking the U.S. bank.

Like I said before, government aid is now funneled to private organizations in third world countries meeting the accountability standards implemented by the G-8 summit. No one is suggesting that government should write checks to regimes and hope they do the right thing. A lot of progress is being made on this front. Many countries in Africa are receiving the ARVs needed to combat the AIDS pandemic, twice as many children are now enrolled in school in Rwanda, 40 billion dollars of debt has been canceled for world’s poorest 18 countries, freeing millions of dollars for education, health care, and efforts to harvest food and provide clean water. Millions upon millions die every year for the stupidest of reasons. No human effort, whether initiated by church or government will ever be perfect, but every segment of society owes it to our fellow man to do everything they can to pull these precious people out of extreme poverty.

Anthony said...

Tia,

Thanks for the clarification. You were right I did read incorrectly on your thoughts with Obamas' views.

God bless,
Anthony