«

»

They Hate Poor People, Don’t They?

A gem from my favorite writer that has a special resonance in this economy:

The elites who denounce poverty despise the poor. Their every high-minded, right-thinking “poverty program” proves this detestation — from the bulldozing of vibrant tenement communities to the drug law policing policies that send poor kids to prison and rich kids to rehab to the humiliation of food stamps and free school lunches to the loathsome inner-city public schools where those free lunches are slopped onto cafeteria trays.

The federal government has some 50 different “poverty programs.” Nearly half a trillion dollars is spent on them each year. That’s about $11,000 per man, woman, and child under the poverty line, enough to lift each and every one of them out of poverty. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2011 poverty guideline for a family of three: $18,530.) We call them “poverty programs” for a reason. If ordinary people with down-to-earth common sense were spending that half trillion, we’d call them “modest prosperity programs.”

“Urban renewal” was indeed the unacknowledged crime of the 20th century against poor Americans, destroying functional neighborhoods in favor of slums. The War on Drugs, as supposed racist Ron Paul notes, hits the poor hard and poor minorities hardest. And our broken education system has created generational poverty, hamstringing the one means people might have to escape is clutches.

I don’t think liberals literally hate the poor. But if you had sat down in, say, 1965, and tried to hash out a program that would make sure poor people — and especially poor black people — didn’t lift themselves up, you would be hard-pressed to come up with a better plan than the one that was actually implemented.

Dependence has never and will never create independence. And given the lust for power and worship that is so entrenched in our political class, I suspect the are fine with that.

3 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Entitling poor people for vote maybe yesterday’s news if the The Ulsterman Report is true.

    Please note this is an article encapsulating an interview with a Wall St. insider (link at top of article, The Ulsterman Report link at the bottom.)

    There can be no doubt that the coming election will see a whole new level of class warfare and we can be certain unions and their leadership will be leading the way. The movement is already building and union leaders in recent months have called on President Obama to essentially start a fight with non-unionized America.

    If this administration could unionize the military who would they beholden to?

    A unionized military would become beholden not to the US Constitution or the American people, but rather, to the union bosses in charge of the new military “workers’ parties” that will undoubtedly spring up as a result.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Section8 says:

    Perpetual class warfare, The domestic version of the military industrial complex. Too many in government and their subsequent special interest groups depend on it. This is why I can’t subscribe to the idea that bigger government will help divide up the wealth equally nor rid us of corporatism or crony capitalism. Big government is not the cause of poverty, but it’s not the cure either, just an exploiter of it.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Mississippi Yankee says:

    A comment from C&S concerning military unions.

    Soviet Russia had union reps in the military. They were called commissars or political officers, whose job was to be sure the cannon fodder died praising Stalin.
    Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.