Rogue World Leaders Say the Darnedest Things!
Paul in Cannon Beach
4,703 Posts
Name the world leader who said the following referring to Pres. candidate Hillary Clinton:
"A head of state should at least have a head!"
"A head of state should at least have a head!"
Comments
Oh, wait a minute... while the quote in question is certainly not clear, it is at least grammatically correct. So I guess it isn't Dubya.
Speaking of the Russian leader, how do you guys feel about him being Time's Man of the Year? The article was fascinating - if you missed it, I believe it's still up online.
Puty baby said this last week but it wasnt widely covered. I was suprised to hear him say such a nasty thing given Hillary still has an outside chance of being our next president.
It goes to show you that if a world leader looks alot like a young Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, its probably not a good thing.
Or just thinking at all.
He promised to raise the minimum wage and said "No working person shlould ever be poor!" The crowd roared.
That's an interesting statement. No working person should ever be poor. Last time I checked, poor people have been part of all cultures throughout all times. Even Jesus said "the poor you willh have with you always".
Most americans would be doing very well if they were just poor. The problem is debt and the idea that we all need to have huge trucks, big screen tvs, and two week vacations to Disneyworld regardless if we can afford to.
I did like one of his ideas which was a $4000 college credit that required community service. Thats a great idea.
>time I checked, poor people have been part of all cultures throughout all
>times. Even Jesus said "the poor you willh have with you always".
1) "No working person should ever be poor" does not equal "There should never be poor people" or "We can/should completely eliminate every incidence of poverty."
2) "The poor you will have with you always" does not equal "There should always be poor people" or "There will always be people who, although they work, will be poor."
Particularly if you look at the context in which that quote was made - the point that Jesus was emphasizing with that quote was that his time on earth would be very short, not that the eradication of poverty should be given up as a lost cause (for those who aren't familiar/don't remember, this is the passage from Matthew where a woman pours ointment on Jesus' head and draws criticism for "wasting" the ointment on Jesus when it could have been sold to help the poor. Jesus says [your translation may vary], "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me." Also, Jesus was talking to a particular group of people; an assertion that those people always would have poor people doesn't necessarily mean that future generations would. Also, again, it doesn't say anything about working poor.
3) I think it's a stretch to say that poor people have been part of all cultures throughout all times. I believe that there are in fact many cultures at various times that have been unfamiliar with the concept of poverty - Native American tribes, for example, or the Bushmen of South Africa. Although these people might be considered "poor" by traditional Western standards of per capita income, I don't think it's accurate to say that there were poor people within the context of their own cultures. They and other hunter/gatherer societies met their food and shelter needs with relatively little work, and spent plenty of time on rest and leisure. Within those cultures, there often was no "poor" (for those tribes that were egalitarian in construct, anyway).
Although "no working person should ever be poor" may be a little too broad, I think generally it's a statement that's going to resonate with a lot of people. People grow up hearing that hard work will lead to success, yet there are people who legitimately work hard and can't pay their utility bills (and not because they took vacations and bought TVs that they couldn't afford). Yes, there are definitely people who live beyond their means, but they don't make up the entire set of working poor (I know you didn't say that they did; I'm just sayin'.). And I can see the appeal of ensuring that someone who works a full-time job will earn enough to support herself and her children. I guess the interest level of Obama's statement also may depend on what he means by "poor." If you interpret it as "no working person should ever be unable to afford basic life necessities," I think it's easier to support than, "no working person should ever be unable to afford a brand new car, a Playstation 3 and a fancy stereo system." But I suspect he meant something closer to the former than the latter.
He said what he said and the crowd roared as visions of not being poor ever again danced through their heads. Ok, I am imagining that last part.
In any large society, there will be "poor" people. If you live in Dubai and you are only a millionare, not a multi millionaire, you might be considered poor.
Poor in Arkansas might still be wealthy compared to people in undeveloped countries.
Unless everyone has the same amount, there will always be people who have less and are therefore poor.
I dont see how Obama can change that.
It is true, we do have an obligation to help those who are needy, it is biblical to do so. But, it does come down to a definition of what constitutes poverty. You lightly pass off those who live beyond their means since they are not the entire set of working poor. But, for many of us, it is a question of legitimacy. I don't mind my tax dollars going to help those truly in need, but find it frustrating when people plead poverty looking for government handouts and are either lazy or bilking the system.
I realize this is purely anecdotal, but it is what drives and motivates me and many others like me. We fire an ee for poor attendance, she immediately applies for social assistance. Sometimes she gets it, usually she gets it, but if she is a cronic abuser of the system, she sometimes will be turned down or receive reduced benefits. I find it interesting talking to the folks at social assistance when they investigate requests and claims. If she were truly hard working, she'd still be here, not requesting a tax dollar handout. Employees who may qualify for social assistance of some sort due to their low pay are walking around with the latest cell phones, iPods, etc. They talk about their new HDTV's they just bought. They are wearing $100+ sneakers. That's real. I see it. It affects my outlook.
It comes down to what is our obligation? Are we seriously trying to separate the truly needy from those who are mere users and rely on assistance to avoid meaningful work? What about requiring those who request assistance to declare valuable possessions? If I were to put one of my aging parents in a local government run nursing home, they would require all kinds of documentation and verification of net worth. Apply the same dogged persistence to welfare.
How socialistic do we want to be?
When I was growing up, I did not know we were poor until I grew up and went into the world and was told we were poor.
Hmmmmm, We had food, clothes and a home. Granted the food was sparse but edible; the clothes were used but clean and good shape; the home was 4 walls and a roof with warmth and love.
Poor? Maybe.
Like Rita said, poor is not necessarily bad. The problem isn't being poor. The problem is we dont know how to live within our means.
I would love an Ipod but I can't afford one. Of course I could buy one but I would rather pay my bills and reduce my debt. Every young person that works for me has an Ipod though.
If Obama will provide me (I work full time) with an Ipod, I will vote for him.
>
>Like Rita said, poor is not necessarily bad. The problem isn't being poor.
>The problem is we dont know how to live within our means.
>
>I would love an Ipod but I can't afford one. Of course I could buy one but I
>would rather pay my bills and reduce my debt. Every young person that works
>for me has an Ipod though.
>
>If Obama will provide me (I work full time) with an Ipod, I will vote for him.
I just don't see any evidence that Obama's definition of "not poor" = "able to own an iPod." At this point I think you're just harping on the semantics of a sound bite. Sound bites by their very nature are particularly susceptible to criticism and manipulation, because they are stated without surrounding context, and that's true of any politician's crowd-riling rhetoric. If only there were some way of finding out what Obama meant by his statement so that we didn't have to speculate....like someplace where he has more detailed descriptions of his positions on various issues that we could evaluate, someplace we could all access via the internet - oh wait! ;-).
From [url]http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/[/url] :
"Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs."
So looks like when Obama says "Working people should never be poor," he means "Working people should be able to raise their families and pay for basic needs," and not "Working people should be able to afford iPods and other such luxuries."
>(CST)[/font]
>
>Please define poor.
>
>When I was growing up, I did not know we were poor until I grew up and went
>into the world and was told we were poor.
>
>Hmmmmm, We had food, clothes and a home. Granted the food was sparse but
>edible; the clothes were used but clean and good shape; the home was 4 walls
>and a roof with warmth and love.
>
>Poor? Maybe.
That's what I'm saying - there's no indication that Obama would call your family poor, and actually every indication otherwise. All evidence suggests that when Obama says "No working people should be poor," he means, "Working people should be able to provide their family with food, clothes and a home with 4 walls and a roof with warmth and love," and I don't see what's so controversial about that.
>also makes a valid point that it may be blue sky dreaming to think we will
>completely eradicate poverty calling into question the reasonableness of
>Obama's promise.
Except Obama never promised to completely eradicate poverty. He promised only to raise the minimum wage, and said "Working people should never be poor." That's not a promise, it's an opinion, an ideal.
>It is true, we do have an obligation to help those who are needy, it is
>biblical to do so. But, it does come down to a definition of what constitutes
>poverty. You lightly pass off those who live beyond their means since they
>are not the entire set of working poor. But, for many of us, it is a question
>of legitimacy. I don't mind my tax dollars going to help those truly in need,
>but find it frustrating when people plead poverty looking for government
>handouts and are either lazy or bilking the system.
But the standards for public assistance are more tied to income than they are to debt. So if I make $10,000 a year and incur a $3,000 debt because I bought myself a plasma TV, I'm not going to get any more assistance than someone who makes $10,000 a year and spends his money wisely. Government benefits are based on formulas of what people should be able to do with the income they have - if they waste that income on iPods, that doesn't entitle them to more money under any current or proposed government program.
>I realize this is purely anecdotal, but it is what drives and motivates me and
>many others like me. We fire an ee for poor attendance, she immediately
>applies for social assistance. Sometimes she gets it, usually she gets it,
>but if she is a cronic abuser of the system, she sometimes will be turned down
>or receive reduced benefits. I find it interesting talking to the folks at
>social assistance when they investigate requests and claims. If she were
>truly hard working, she'd still be here, not requesting a tax dollar handout.
>Employees who may qualify for social assistance of some sort due to their low
>pay are walking around with the latest cell phones, iPods, etc. They talk
>about their new HDTV's they just bought. They are wearing $100+ sneakers.
>That's real. I see it. It affects my outlook.
There are always going to be people who abuse any system of public assistance. The best thing to do is to take steps to curb such abuse.
>It comes down to what is our obligation? Are we seriously trying to separate
>the truly needy from those who are mere users and rely on assistance to avoid
>meaningful work? What about requiring those who request assistance to declare
>valuable possessions? If I were to put one of my aging parents in a local
>government run nursing home, they would require all kinds of documentation and
>verification of net worth. Apply the same dogged persistence to welfare.
Well even Medicaid doesn't require people to sell off their TVs, iPods, etc. before qualifying for government-paid nursing homes. The requirements are harsh (as I know from my experience going through this with a grandparent recently), but they don't seem substantially harsher than standards for other financial assistance. I think one problem is that it's easier for a young welfare recipient to defraud the system than it is for an elderly person in need of nursing home care. So figuring out how to crack down more on fraud is another issue.
Yes! That is the nub of the problem. Determining who is truly needy and deserving and must be an integral part of any changes or increase in social assistance, otherwise we are just wasting money and further alienating those who are supporting the system.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is the government's place to take care of the poor and the disenfranchised. I believe that responsibility lies with the church. And I am not speaking of "church" the institution. I am speaking of church, "the people of God"; whichever God a person chooses to worship. God does not call the government to care for the poor, he calls us, each individual, to care for each other. When we relegate our responsibility to the government, we are taking the easy way out. If the human race is to continue, we, as individuals, must become true humanitarians.
My opinion. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves.
Holy cow Batman!!!!! x:o