Beck, like many who advocate for "small" government and so-called "self-regulating free markets" really misses the point. Certainly, people who live below the poverty line have "more" than others did in the past, but the standard of living is different now than then. It is difficult to understand poverty when one has never really experienced it.
Some claim to have been "poor" or "struggled", but few have ever really experienced true poverty. Those who are poor live a daily struggle not to afford some new "toy" or a luxury car, but to earn enough to buy food, keep the lights on, and just get to work.
Sure, "poor" people have big screen TVs, should we begrudge someone a few luxuries in life? If we shouldn't begrudge a billionaire for making his money on the backs of the poor, then we shouldn't begrudge the poor for their few "excesses".
The larger issue is not that our poor and impoverished have things, it is that unlike so many who live comfortably, our poor and impoverished must spend their money, their time, their energy in an effort to stay where they are. Glenn Beck has likely always had a little extra with which he could move himself forward; those who live below the poverty line have little extra and the idea of "moving up" is a mere fantasy.
I find Jason Easley's commentary unimpressive, and a little sloppy.
Too much to talk about here. Beck says that because they have big screen tvs, the poor in this country are not really poor, and therefore should not get government support (or at least GB shouldnt feel bad or care about them).
I think the tv issue is negligible. TV or not, many people struggle montly to meet the basics; poverty is a real burden today in America. Beck just looks foolish here.
More interesting is what can (and should) we do about it? I think the rich and powerful have a responsibility to do something. I think we can do better than government and taxing the rich.
We come together in govt to work toward a common goal. But what about when somebody says they don't want to be a part of it? Especially when that person is the one paying for it? To dismiss this as greed is to miss an opportunity to include someone in the solution, and accomplishes as little as a Glen Beck soap box.
The people who come through our doors daily have nothing more than they can carry in a sack or shopping cart,and most of that is junk. The people who help each other each day have identified with the poor and know that what they have is for all.
Wow, I'm glad that Glenn has set me straight.
ReplyDeleteBeck, like many who advocate for "small" government and so-called "self-regulating free markets" really misses the point. Certainly, people who live below the poverty line have "more" than others did in the past, but the standard of living is different now than then. It is difficult to understand poverty when one has never really experienced it.
Some claim to have been "poor" or "struggled", but few have ever really experienced true poverty. Those who are poor live a daily struggle not to afford some new "toy" or a luxury car, but to earn enough to buy food, keep the lights on, and just get to work.
Sure, "poor" people have big screen TVs, should we begrudge someone a few luxuries in life? If we shouldn't begrudge a billionaire for making his money on the backs of the poor, then we shouldn't begrudge the poor for their few "excesses".
The larger issue is not that our poor and impoverished have things, it is that unlike so many who live comfortably, our poor and impoverished must spend their money, their time, their energy in an effort to stay where they are. Glenn Beck has likely always had a little extra with which he could move himself forward; those who live below the poverty line have little extra and the idea of "moving up" is a mere fantasy.
I find Jason Easley's commentary unimpressive, and a little sloppy.
ReplyDeleteToo much to talk about here. Beck says that because they have big screen tvs, the poor in this country are not really poor, and therefore should not get government support (or at least GB shouldnt feel bad or care about them).
I think the tv issue is negligible. TV or not, many people struggle montly to meet the basics; poverty is a real burden today in America. Beck just looks foolish here.
More interesting is what can (and should) we do about it? I think the rich and powerful have a responsibility to do something. I think we can do better than government and taxing the rich.
We come together in govt to work toward a common goal. But what about when somebody says they don't want to be a part of it? Especially when that person is the one paying for it? To dismiss this as greed is to miss an opportunity to include someone in the solution, and accomplishes as little as a Glen Beck soap box.
The people who come through our doors daily have nothing more than they can carry in a sack or shopping cart,and most of that is junk. The people who help each other each day have identified with the poor and know that what they have is for all.
ReplyDelete