|
|||||||||||||
Anarcho-Syndicalism versus
Letters #41-#45
Letter #041
Poverty is increasing in the US because of Obama's socialist policies, but Christians are trying to help the poor. Babette
Letter #042
[By "Robert Rector," apparently...] New data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau show the largest increase in poverty in U.S. recorded history. An additional 3.7 million Americans fell into poverty in 2009. Buried in these numbers are the children born to single mothers, who are five times more likely to live in poverty than children born to married parents. Today, over 40 percent of children are born outside wedlock, and the numbers are particularly devastating for Hispanics (51.3 percent) and African Americans (71.6 percent). A new report and chart book by Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation illustrates how this steady rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing is one of the major causes of child poverty in the U.S. today. The report also links this collapse in marriage to a rise in welfare spending. Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, the U.S. has spent $15.9 trillion on means-tested welfare. And today, spending on welfare programs is 13 times greater than it was in 1964. By undermining intact families and eroding the work ethic in low-income communities, the welfare state has encouraged dependency and intergenerational poverty. If the United States is serious about reducing poverty and reining in federal welfare spending, it must strengthen marriage. We can do this in several ways, including reducing anti-marriage penalties in current welfare programs and providing factual information about the benefits of marriage throughout low-income communities. Find more policy ideas on combating The Unsustainable Growth of Welfare and Making Federal Policy Marriage-Friendly at the recently launched "Solutions for America" website. Uncover the state by state Impact of Marriage on the Probability of Child Poverty by clicking on a state for more in-depth analysis and charts.
Letter #043
Hello, Babette,
Let me give you a hint. The last opinion you had expressed was that poverty did not exist in the United States. Therefore, you're not qualified to use the very next breath to say why poverty is rising in the United States. You're transition from "Poverty isn't real!" to "This poverty is worsening because of Socialism!" Perhaps it would be better if you would actually research these things, instead of just relying on what the Catholic Church has taught you.
Could you at least pretend to be critical about everything you read without instantly believing it? "An additional 3.7 million Americans fell into poverty in 2009." Actually, it would be unfair to call it the largest increase in history. In 1980, the poverty rate was 11.2 percent for men, and 14.7 percent for women. By 1983, after Ronald Reagan and the Conservative, Republican Party had been in power for two years, it reached 13.5 percent for men, and 16.8 percent for women. It should be noted, too, that the 1980's of Ronald Reagan were an era of booming in unheard-of profits, whereas the poverty caused today is coming with the onset of a global depression. The 3.7 million Americans falling into poverty, though? That is only 1.2 percent compared to the numbers brought into poverty by a typical, conservative party. See the statistics here at the US Census Bureau: Census.Gov This was at a time when Ronald Reagan killed millions of people by refusing to acknowledge AIDS as a disease, likewise, influenced heavily by the Catholic Church and the Christian Community. Gay rights were resisted entirely by this administration, as well as abortion. Or, at least, publicly abortion was resisted. Richard Nixon, as president of the United States, was in favor of forced abortion for all mixed-ethnicities, at least according to his own monologues he gave at the White House every night. Naturally, this being the candidate for the Republican Party, I can't imagine that this policy wasn't still imbued in the Republicans and Conservatives. Ah, look how much you care about your own people now! The political party you're protected, the good, right "capitalist-liberal-conservative" party, has said that they would have forced an abortion on any one who was to have a biracial child. But you listen to that political party, apparently, and its adherents. Nobody calls Obama a Socialist who themselves believe in Socialism. The only individuals who call Obama a Socialist are the Christians who called gospel music a form of satanic worship. Socialism means workers managing the means of production themselves. Where has this happened under Obama? I'm not managing the place where I work as a computer technician. I have no rights at all, except to obey, otherwise, I don't get paid. If every worker managed their industry, they could choose how it was run so as to benefit everyone. When Obama or Reagan are in charge, or whether their Capitalist friends are in charge, it doesn't change a thing. It is Capitalism, because a few individuals control, own, manage, and profit from possessing productive property. The common people themselves, without a single thing, must beg them for the right to work -- the right to live. It is not Socialism so long as the world's productive property has not be SOCIALIZED, that is, put into the hands of the social members who built the factories, the farms, and the mines. (You should use the appropriate words. You sound like a doctrinaire, Soviet Marxist talking about how "the petit bourgeoisie reactionary blah blah blah..." In short, talk like you're not brainwashed.) This document also asserts that "If the United States is serious about reducing poverty and reining in federal welfare spending, it must strengthen marriage. We can do this in several ways, including reducing anti-marriage penalties in current welfare programs..." People losing control over their sexual organs to the power of the state? That's called Eugenics, and I think you spent a good deal of time telling me that this is why Margaret Sanger was evil. Finally, and I think this needs to be made clear: the collapse of marriage has nothing to do with poverty. Are you aware that 34,000 people starve to death every single day in nations that have been historically dominated by the West and the Catholic Church?
There's no "Socialism" there. That is to say, there is no "Democratic Party" there. All that has existed there for the past 500 years is Capitalism, thoroughly tainted by missionaries who have claimed large plots for themselves, multiple-marriages, slavery, prison camps, and other indecencies. So, now that you believe poverty exists, you're think that it's caused by "Obama's Socialism"? Please, look a little deeper into these issues. If it sounds too simple and like it serves only one person's interests, then it's probably not true. Like, "the pope is the only one who can hear the voice of god" or "hunger and starvation are only caused by Socialism." Those are simply people trying to use you for their own ends. Why not wake up and be your own individual, ready to look at the world for what it is and to make your own impression upon it? Sincerely,
Letter #044
You know, it's funny, Babette.... In my first e-mail, all I asked was that laws passed should equally apply to men and women, particularly those that might be used to enforce a gender role. Apparently, for this little amount, one must abolish Catholicism, Capitalism, and the State. There is no justice so long as those three institutions continue. If you didn't rely on them instantly to defend your support of Sexism, I wouldn't be so confirmed in their evil. Thank you. Sincerely,
Letter #045
Dear Andy, Sorry, what I meant to write instead of poverty was that hunger does not exist in the USA - at least not to any great extent. What I saw was obesity. I am dashing off my emails to you late at night after all my other work, and perhaps I did not express myself clearly. And abolishing the Catholic Church, the State and Capitalism would not abolish sexism. Nature is sexist, it is biological, and vive la difference. Babette
|
