This is for all the "victims" out there.

President Obama, Democrats, and liberals like to promote an ideology of "victimhood."  That is, a sense that for all the poor and downtrodden, someone or something has created their situation.  They are not to be blamed. They are not responsible for the quandary they find themselves in.  It is someone else's fault.  And such people, who have been held down by others - are victims.  Therefore, they are "entitled" to be supported by the rest of us via taxes...taxes...and more taxes.

 There is NO personal responsibility to be found in "victimhood."  Never mind that maybe someone  didn't finish high school.  Or had a baby (or two, or three) all in their teens with no father or husband in sight.  And don't mention that alcohol and drug abuse might have played a role in holding someone back.  Throw in a few criminal acts, poor work history, lack of responsibility, and you have a recipe for disaster.  Yet, the party of the "poor" - the Democrats - (we are always told it is the Democratic Party) - sure seems bent on continuing to enslave a segment of the populace.  When people buy into the suggestion that they are a "victim" and are not responsible for their own situations, they allow the government to take over.  They are beholden to the government.  The government becomes their caretaker.  They do not have to lift a finger and don't have much incentive to do so anyhow.  After all, if you could blame someone or something else for all your own problems, and the government provided everything for you - food, clothing, shelter, etc. , why bother trying to be responsible for yourself?  Generations have been brought up in this vicious cycle, and such a cycle continues to be the driving force behind the Democratic party.  Vote for them and they will provide!  They will take from the "haves" - who don't deserve to keep what they earned, and give to the "have nots."

Here's a video which was recommended viewing by Charlie Sykes, on WTMJ, a few weeks ago.  It speaks to the very notion of "victimhood."

Comments

[John Foust]

Without trying to get too "ad hominem tu quoque," Amy, when you do your charitable giving, or when organizations you support perform their charity, what prior personal analysis of the recipients do they perform, and what qualifiers are placed on the charity?

Because I don't remember the trailing phrases you seem to imply... "feed the hungry (as long as they don't feel entitled)", "cloth the naked (as long as they don't get too dependent on warmth)", "care for the sick (as long as its not a pre-existing condition based on their lack of personal responsibility.)."

Note I didn't say that the government had to do it. Mostly I'm asking why you talk this way. Did you learn this at church last Sunday? You talk about the poor and the needy with the same broad-brush strokes you use for insulting liberals. You think the poor are incapable of resisting hand-outs? Unable to start on their own? Unable to benefit from assistance? They don't desire to be self-sufficient, because they weren't smart enough to resist the sweet talk of politicians (left and right) who promised them a handout?

[grumps]

My thought goes to the victim language I see displayed here.

"We're not going to take it anymore." Somewhow implying that they've taken anything at all

"Don't let them take our ______." Another common complaint of the victim.

Foust's points are all good, Amy. You can't 'Go Galt' and follow the Beatitudes. Bishop Butler said it more than 125 years ago when he refuted the egoism you profess. Matthew 25: 35-40 "‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ "

We don't get to decide who is worthy, Amy. It's just up to us to help where we can. If you feel put upon by that you may need to look into your heart.

[John Foust]

Gee, grumps, it's getting quiet in here all the sudden.

[grumps]

They're probably all over at Kyle's house watching the returns from VA and NJ.

[buck]

Sorry thought I was in church.

[John Foust]

And how was the sermon today, Buck? Is Amy downstairs preparing the egg coffee?

[buck]

your odd at best.

[John Foust]

No, really. Usually when I'm right she's busy telling me I'm wrong. This time I'm right and she can't bear to admit she's wrong? That her heart has been hardened?

[John Foust]

Is Amy on vacation?

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

Yes, John Foust. I was on vacation - out of state for a week.

Looks like I need to do some catching up: You state: "You think the poor are incapable of resisting hand-outs? Unable to start on their own? Unable to benefit from assistance? They don't desire to be self-sufficient, because they weren't smart enough to resist the sweet talk of politicians (left and right) who promised them a handout?" No, John, I don't think this way - the Democratic party and it's leaders do. They encourage dependence on government - for votes. They encourage the destruction of the family - they achieved that very well with the welfare program that paid women to have baby after baby with no man around. They encourage people to send their children to schools for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on the taxpayer dime. And now they are trying to encourage all of America to become dependent on government for our health. I say no! Conservatives and Republicans believe that people CAN achieve things. Stop giving handouts. It's like spoiling a child. Give a child everything they want, and what incentive does a child have to work for anything? None at all. And that is wrong. So blame me for criticizing a society that promotes a "victim" mentality. The United States was not build on "victimhood" but on hard work and self-reliance. Government is NOT the answer. Individual achievement is - and given the right tools and encouragement - not handouts - people will be more motivated to improve their lot in life.

[John Foust]

You seemed to ignore my questions, although you quoted them. I asked, why didn't the poor simply resist these handouts? Did they think they would be better off without them? Don't you think they desire to be self-sufficient? Weren't the handouts given by both Republicans and Democrats alike?

If someone is hungry, should they be fed? If someone is naked, should they be clothed? What about someone in prison? Maybe you can tell me the parts of the New Testament that talk about the right tools and encouragements.

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John Foust: Your best bet is to ask the poor why they keep taking handouts. I cannot answer that one. You know, that "Obama money" - that comes from "Obama's stash..."
And yes, I do believe that some people do not want to make an effort to "help themselves." Whether they are so used to be taken care of by the government that they cannot see any other way, or they just are lazy. And face it, some people ARE lazy. Some would rather sit home all day, watch television, and do nothing to help themselves.
And the "handouts" given by Uncle Sam are taxpayer dollars.
So John, if you prefer the status quo - that the government continues in it's efforts to create a population dependent upon them for their lives, that is your choice. It is not mine. I don't want to rely on big government to do everything for me and provide for my every need. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility (I can hear the libs shudder out there....)

[John Foust]

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, too. You seem to ignore what I write. In my first comment, I said "Note I didn't say that the government had to do it" but your responses seem to say I think the government needs to do it.

I'm asking you about how a good person should think about the poor and how their needs should be addressed. You say there's "some people" out there who don't want to help themselves. I don't remember that section of the Sermon on the Mount, maybe you can refresh my memory. What does the New Testament say about this? Do you think this is a Christian nation? How would a Christian nation respond to people who are hungry, yet who don't want to seem to help themselves? Do we choose life and charity, or do we let them die so the problem goes away?

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John Foust: Barack Obama doesn't think America is a Christian nation. On June 28, 2006, The One had this to say: "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
Barry O doesn't think we are a Christian nation. However, the percentages speak otherwise. 77% of Americans still consider themselves Christian.
That is all besides the point, tho. America is the most charitable nation on the planet. We do more to help our fellow man - whether they be in America or foreign countries - than any other nation on earth. Just when is enough enough, John? And admit it - some people ARE lazy and are perfectly content to be taken care of. They could care less about making a contribution to society. And many of those same people are the ones the Barry O. & Co. want the taxpayers to continue to pick up the tab for. Enough.

[John Foust]

I was asking Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer, not Barack H. Obama. I'm looking for a refinement of your views on how to help the poor, because your post seems to say "Let 'em starve and let God sort 'em out." How would a Christian respond to people who are hungry, yet who don't want to seem to help themselves? Yell "tug on your bootstraps, suckers!"? When would it be enough? I dunno. When they're not hungry, naked or homeless?

So you're saying you're opposed to all that aid that the US of A is already doing? After all, it's probably just going to lazy unmotivated people. How do the poor differ today from when Bush was President? I think he said he wanted to help the poor almost as much as the private military contractors, as Jesus demanded.

You don't understand what Obama might've meant in his speech, but you're ready to suggest that if someone identifies as Christian, they would also agree that we're "a Christian nation"?

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John Foust: Tell me where in America people are naked, starving, and homeless.
I think you must be thinking about the third world countries. The third world countries which America helps out quite often.
And no, I am not saying that I am opposed to aiding those who really need it. I am opposed to those in America who are content to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting. And there are a lot of people in our country who fall into that category. In addition, many of our "community" organizations exist simply to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of those scammers heading such operations (ever hear of ACORN?). The many layers at the top skim off of what should be going to help others. We've seen that happen over and over - check out some of the "community service organizations" in our own Milwaukee and see how many of their directors have been found to be stealing or diverting money away from what it was intended.
The poor people in America have every opportunity - schooling, grants, loans, food, clothing, etc. all provided for the taking. Opportunities abound if someone wants to work for them and better their situation. Stay in school and learn, for goodness sake. Is that asking too much? Anyone in America can and should go to school!
What group of people was crying out loud for making people go to work (oh the horrors!) when welfare changed into W2 and people couldn't just sit home, having baby after baby and getting paid for doing so! Oh, how terrible a society we were - to make someone who was quite able earn their own living! Democrats screamed the loudest - what outrage! How cold-hearted! When in reality, we were breaking the cycle of poverty and dependency upon government by giving people the tools they would need to support themselves.

[John Foust]

Again I'll ask, where in the New Testament does it describe your restrictions for helping the poor, the unclothed, the homeless?

So you take a pretty dim view of the organizations helping the poor, too? They're as shifty as the people they're helping, hmm? Which organizations? ACORN was the most powerful? They're all like ACORN?

So all these poor people in Milwaukee... they're all purposefully avoiding improving their situation, because of the promise of more handouts?

How would Jesus do it?

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John Foust: Where in the New Testament does it say that we Americans must pay and pay and pay via taxes to support those who want to live off the taxpayer dime?

[John Foust]

What's so hard about my question? From the outset I've told you I'm not talking about making the government do it. I'm asking how St. Amy would do it. I'm asking how your sentiments above comport with your professed religious beliefs.

[grumps]

I'm not sure that you can get her to answer, John. She's already stated that there are no homeless in America,no one starves.

Amy has never been to South Texas or Mountain Kentucky. She's apparently never worked a soup line or homeless shelter on a night when the temp is below zero.

Amy has convi9nced herself based on the stories of "some people" that the poor deserve what they get. Nancy Reagan's, "Just say no," turns into Amy's, "Just go to school," as if she doesn't know what some people have to go through to get to school.

I don't think she's avoiding your questions, John. I think she's sincerely convinced that she's right, that there is no way to help someone without making them a lesser human. If she did she might have suggested United Appeal or JA or churches or service organizations, not knowing that those organizations are just as strapped as any other.

She rails at "community organizations" whether they are teaching literacy or providing coats to toddlers or giving rides to the grocers for seniors. Amy is convince that any altruist must be acting for selfish motives and she just doesn't trust them.

She has no trust but her profound faith in Prosperity Jesus who will set us all up with a condo in Heaven if we just apply ourselves. So, while some of us struggle out here every day to get help to the people who need it, she can sit in her tower and say, "If they were good people they could help themselves."

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John Foust and Grumps: Did you read my earlier comment? I stated: "And no, I am not saying that I am opposed to aiding those who really need it. I am opposed to those in America who are content to sit back and let others do the heavy lifting. And there are a lot of people in our country who fall into that category." Key words in my comment: "those who really need it." And I realize that there are people who do need help - due to circumstances such as health, disabilities, etc. America does aid its needy. There are a lot of honest charities out there - that Americans can feel free to contribute to. When it comes to government, we have no choice. We must pay taxes, with the government funding many social programs that do NOT work. Actually, most goverment programs do not work....
What I am addressing, and which both of you refuse to admit, is the section of our population in the U.S. that is quite content to rely on the government (via the taxpayers) to provide for them. Without requiring anything in return. And many people have learned how to scam the system and live from year to year, and generation to generation. And the Democrats promote this kind of lifestyle - with continuing to promise things to people without requiring anything in return (except, of course, for votes...)
Your question, Mr. Foust, about the New Testament, is pointless. The Bible does not specifically spell out that Americans must be forced to pay via taxes for people to sit at home and watch television and give birth to child after child after child with no visible means of support -except, the government. Does the New Testament say anything about people being forced to fork over their own hard-earned money so the government can dole it out to useless social programs, just in an effort to get votes for Democratic politicians? I didn't think so...

[buck]

When's the next trip to texas or kentucky to feed the poor in below zero weather taking place? How many times a year do you go Grumps? Where do I send My donation?

[grumps]

@buck- Are you willfully ignorant or do you come by it naturally?

[buck]

You piss and moan that Amy hasn't been there, I want to know how many times your ass has been down there. I suppose you being liberal all you have to do is think about it or make it up and the world is better. Way to help the world. Do you think you'll sober up in this life time or is staying stoned a goal.

[John Foust]

Again, Amy, I asked you how you differentiate between "those who really need it" and "all the victims out there" and the irresponsible, entitled ones who haven't yet moved to Lake Country.

I am perfectly willing to admit that there is a fraction of people out there who grow entitled to their benefits. Nothing I've said or suggested here says otherwise. This is no doubt true of every human system. (For that matter, I suppose you'll agree it's true of every government system of subsidy and tax break as well. Don't rich folks and businesses love their exceptions? If these complications didn't exist along with their unintended perverse incentives, a lot of lobbyists and accountants would be out of work.)

I've asked you to state your principles and how they align with your religious views, and how you think they should be implemented in actual practice. What's an honest charity or a dishonest charity? How do I tell them apart? A century ago, most Wisconsin counties had a poor farm that housed the indigent in exchange for labor. You think that was an improper use of government, for our predecessors to decide this was something they wanted their local government to do?

I am sure there were people who felt entitled in Jesus's day. For centuries, the Roman government heavily subsidized grain and bread to insure happy citizens. They had endless political debates about what should be given away, shrinking and expanding the list of give-aways and free entertainment. Think Miller Park, but with free bread. So how does Jesus's admonitions about the poor carry through to you, Amy, today? I'll say it again. I'm not talking about the government doing it. I'm not even probing into the details of how or whether you do it, personally. And still you say it's only the Democrats who do this, in order to win votes. Really. No Republican has ever supported these programs, local or Federal? Oh, wait, let me guess. No True Republican.

Buck, in my county, the leader of the local GOP (a candidate for Assembly) was busted for marijuana possession. You think drug use is divided along party lines? And my very first line said "ad hominem tu quoque."

[Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer]

John Foust: I believe I have answered your question numerous times in my responses. Obviously, I am not giving you the answers you want to hear.

Again, I believe that there are truly needy in our country. And our country helps them out. Via charities and our taxes.

I also believe that there are many in our society who are not truly needy, but have grown up in a culture of dependency, which is continually fed by our government. Such people do not make a contribution and our government does not expect them to - until it comes time to vote. The Democratic Party is the party of big government, high taxes, and no real solutions to anything. They want to keep people poor -so they are dependent upon the government for their every need. In return, the poor are to vote Dems into power. And this method does indeed appear to work.

As for my own personal views, which I have already stated. We can and do help the truly needy. We can and do help the people who are quite capable of helping themselves, but are either too lazy or to ignorant to be self-reliant.

I give to charities. I volunteer my time to help others. I also work. I also am raising my family. My husband and I pay taxes - and more taxes.... What exactly, do you and grumps do? I, like Buck, wonder how many trips grumps has made to Kentucky to help the masses of poor, naked, starving, homeless people....

[John Foust]

I give to charities, I volunteer, I work, I pay my taxes, I don't feel the need to pray on street corners and often keep my good deeds between me and the receivers. You expected that a man of my character wouldn't do such things?

For next week's lecture, can you compare and contrast your view of the Democrats and encouraged dependency, with that of the Republicans and big business?