With Regard to “Ending Poverty”
December 8th, 2007 at 10:30am Leo Pusateri
From KNSI News (all emphases mine):
ST. PAUL (KNSI)- Minnesota’s Commission to End Poverty made a stop in St. Cloud a few weeks ago to talk about the increase in poverty and hunger.
The 20-member group, established by the Legislature, held a hearing Wednesday at the State Capitol. Among those testifying Colleen Moriarty with Hunger Solutions. She says, while the state needs a long-term plan, there are also immediate concerns. She also called on the Commission to urge Congress to increase funding for Food Stamps, school breakfast and elderly nutrition programs in the next Farm Bill.
The Commission has been directed to draw up a plan to eliminate poverty in Minnesota by 2020.
Another “Great Society” debacle in the making on the State level?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This pov·er·ty
/ˈpɒv
ər
1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.
Question: How does one “end poverty” by increasing government handouts?
You want to end poverty? Literally? You do it by increasing the number of JOBS available! You do it by ending confiscatory tax policies that stifle job growth, and instead unleash new money into the local economy.
Fact of the matter is, liberals have never been in favor of eliminating poverty. They NEED poverty; since they need a hopeless, subservient class that depends on liberalism for their meager sustenance. The white limousine liberals have, since the early 1960s, created a plantation that parallels those that enslaved blacks during the mid 1800s. But instead of harvesting cotton, they harvest the votes required to keep them in power.
In the end, liberals aren’t for finding solutions; rather, they’re looking for the next problem that allows them to be viewed as saviors. And rather than actually solving the problem, they propose inane “pseudo-solutions” that only perpetuate it, such as enabling and expanding the culture and conditions that served to create the problem in the first place.
In sum, the problem of “poverty” is at its roots one of social engineering. The road to hell has and continues to be paved by the neo-socialists with their “good intentioned” means of keeping the poor in their place; while instilling no hope of upward mobility.
Rather, by creating a climate of fear that the poor will be abandoned should they fall out of power, the neo-socialists have accomplished what the KKK could have only hoped to accomplish.
As a matter of fact, the KKK couldn’t have done any more damage if they tried.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, General Government, Kook Left, Life Issues
31 Comments
1. FmrMarine | December 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
“The POOR will ALWAYS be with you”
This is another pie in the sky program. No amount of money will solve “poverty”. Some people are ambitious some are not. Some people are intelligent, some are not. Being “poor is a relative term. I live in a $275,000.00 house, friends of mine live in $2,000,000.00 + houses so am I impoverished?
My wife may think so LOL, but seriously this is a condition that always has and always will be with us.
Marxism will not solve it.
2. kjstrouble | December 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
I love the liberal idea that more taxes, more programs, and more government will solve poverty. I have solved my own problem with poverty, I work and live within my means. I may not have as much money as others I know, but because I work I am not dependent on some liberal’s idea of what I should have, I make my own decisions. And I KNOW I am not poor because of that.
3. Almiranta | December 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Thank you, Leo, for having the courage to come out and say the obvious—particularly the part about the “plantation mentality”.
I have never seen such callousness as the Left’s utter determination to not only maintain a poverty class in this country but now to import one.
An interesting factoid: The number of those at the poverty level has remained pretty much unchanged over the past couple of decades, while jobs have increased and so has income all across the board. What is interesting is that the NUMBER of those in poverty matches, almost exactly, the NUMBER of illegal aliens.
Back to my second paragraph, about importing poor people to shore up the Left’s base.
Another thing the Left is determined to ignore is the fact that those who do live in poverty live in households where the head of the household works fewer than 20 hours a week. Doncha think that working as many hours as the rest of us do might change that poverty level thing?
I think it was Oprah who had a guest who said that studies showed that three simple things will almost GUARANTEE that a person will rise above poverty.
1. Finish high school
2. Do not have children till you are married
3. Do not marry till you are at least 21.
Wow. Pretty complicated, isn’t it? Doesn’t it sound a lot like what we (”we” being those older than about 35-40) were taught when we were young? Of course, that was back when families did the teaching of values and morals and how to succeed in life, and schools did not try to do social engineering but merely TAUGHT—reading, writing, math, science. history as it really happened, all those old-fashioned and outdated things.
4. Bigfoot | December 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
3. Do not marry till you are at least 21.
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head, Altamira.
Why am I not poor? Is it because I got an education, or because I’ve worked for most of my adult life? Yes, those have certainly helped. But what might be the main reason that I’m not poor is something that was done, not be me, but by my parents. They got married before bringing me (and my siblings) into the world.
The number of those at the poverty level has remained pretty much unchanged over the past couple of decades
Another thing that I’ve noticed is the tremendous decrease in poverty (according to U.S. government stats) between the end of WW2 and the mid-60’s. In other words, poverty decreased dramatically before the Great Society programs were created, but hardly at all afterwards.
The Great Society’s subsidizing of out-of-wedlock births is the main reason why so many have had it worse than I have.
5. liberalT | December 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
the thing that you guys always neglect is the poverty trap. For example - say you were born the son of a single parent mother who had a drug problem. She couldn’t provide proper nutrition or clothing for you and you live in a high crime area. As you grow up you have trouble in school - your mom is doped up or drunk and you have to take care of your younger siblings. When you are old enough you also take a job to help support your younger siblings. Because of this you just basically make it out of high school - or maybe you don’t - either way you have to get a job to support yourself and your family who can’t give you any money to get you started. You work one or more low paying jobs.
Now you can rant and rave all you want about the mother - but surely you agree that the kid did nothing wrong except having the misfortune to being born into poverty and a bad situation.
The thing is - the vast majority of poor people aren’t “dumb” or “lazy” as FmrMarine would think but rather are trapped into bad situations in a poverty trap
This is exactly the situation which government programs are meant for. And Armirata - I would encourage you to think before saying its so easy to not be in poverty. Many people did not have the opportunities that were afforded to you - don’t confuse your good fortune with some sort of genius on your part
6. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Almiranta, can you document what you say?
7. Economics Topics News &ra&hellip | December 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Edited due to spam-infested link…
8. Jerry Haberer | December 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
This group was up here in Alexandria too. How can any government agency or anything else eliminate poverty in the next 12 years? Just tap the Treasury for everything and start cutting checks for everyone?
It has not put a dent in poverty in more than 40 years and some $11 TRILLION into the Great Society, War on Poverty rat hole. How are they going to do it now?
There are some definite needs out there, and the bureaucracy works like a sieve. A person makes one dollar over the amount agreed to as a poverty level and all support disappears. There is no gradual plan to help people ween themselves from the government teat. It’s feast or famine.
9. USA | December 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Wow, let’s correct the liars once again,
“Fact of the matter is, liberals have never been in favor of eliminating poverty. They NEED poverty; since they need a hopeless, subservient class that depends on liberalism for their meager sustenance.”
You mean Conservatives where you wrote liberals.
Really all you conservative devils can live in your RICH little bubble where you never come out and see or understand the real world, without any concern of others, and talk high and mighty about what you have, and how having a black heart will keep you on top. And project all the problems your kind have created onto your enemies. Go right ahead ignorant demons.
10. Leo Pusateri | December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
USA–I guess it hurts when you gotta take a hard look in the mirror, doesn’t it?
What, pray tell, is inaccurate about the piece, and why is it inaccurate?
11. USA | December 8th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“The thing is - the vast majority of poor people aren’t “dumb” or “lazy” as FmrMarine would think but rather are trapped into bad situations in a poverty trap”
That’s right. There are many traps that have been thought up by such minds as Leo, Matt, Mark, Bigfoot, Almiranta, FmrMarine. Traps also created so the weak and stupid can come to power while their enemies who can stop them will become downtrodden. Leo, Matt, Mark, Bigfoot, Almiranta, FmrMarine are the enemies of God and mankind. And the enemies of the poor.
12. USA | December 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“USA–I guess it hurts when you gotta take a hard look in the mirror, doesn’t it?”
You guess wrong. What a discusting, vile comment. I have no idea what your talking about because you have no idea what your talking about. Your a vile devil. There are many like you, you are not unique. I deal with sickness like you all the time.
“What, pray tell, is inaccurate about the piece, and why is it inaccurate?”
Well if you even read before making insults you’d realize I already corrected you. ha ha ha.
13. What? | December 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Leo,
So we should do away with Social Security?
Hmm, what else should we ax? How about money to homeless shelters? Hmmm, how about food stamps? Oh oh, government housing is a big waste of tax dollars, too!
The goal should be to alleviate the affects of poverty AND reduce the number of people who are impoverished. You cannot have the second one without the first.
The programs mentioned above are designed to alleivate the effects of poverty so that those who are poor can be successful employees. If people aren’t fed and clothes, how are they going to work?
Also, some people cannot work. Shouldn’t there be a social safety net to support these people? Or would you rather see them die in the street?
People who support the programs listed support them not to get votes and maintain power. Instead they seek power in order to support them.
14. Jerry Haberer | December 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Don’t let the leftie losers get ya down, Leo. We all know there are many unfortunate people out there who need assistance. There have been generations of leeches at the government teat, however, who have not tried their damnedest to move forward for a better life, using their own energy, intellect and initiative. They just want what they don’t have.
If this country can spend $11 TRILLION over slightly more than a 40 year period with no end in sight, someone is messing up in that bureaucratic structure somewhere with a capital ‘F’. How are some legislators in Minnesota or anywhere else going to solve the problems in 12 freakin’ years?
15. steveGA | December 8th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
So a group of people whose mission is feeding the poor is worse than the KKK? Makes perfect sense to me.
I hear that Jesus fellow is worse than Hitler, what with the loaves and fishes and all…
Merry Christmas, Leo, keep spreading that holiday spirit.
16. USA | December 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
“Don’t let the leftie losers get ya down, Leo. We all know there are many unfortunate people out there who need assistance. There have been generations of leeches at the government teat, however, who have not tried their damnedest to move forward for a better life, using their own energy, intellect and initiative. They just want what they don’t have.”
Jerry Haberer,
Losers? ha ha ha. You live in a fantasy world, a delusion created by your ego to protect you from the realisation of your own stupidity, just like all the devils you pat on the back. All you can do is falsely call people names when faced with people more intellegent than you who can out debate you. Just line up behind the other devils following the will of Satan. You are the true loser. You delude yourself. You apparently didn’t read anything, and/or consider it.
Conservatives are a sickness. Spend half a trillion to kill people but throw their hands in the air when you talk about helping people. Ha ha ha. It flies in the face of logic. No logic at all, other than the fact we are speaking to the devil himself when we talk to conservatives.
17. AAR | December 8th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
“…the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the year—nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.”
“The decline in marriage is the second major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. Increasing marriage would substantially reduce child poverty: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.”
AAR
18. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
AAR, you’re clearly quoting. How hard would it be to throw in the link? That way we could all read what you’re quoting. You’re not trying to keep it a secret, are you?
19. Ricorun | December 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I do tentatively agree on one thing you said AAR (and I say “tentatively” because I can’t document it very well): put the pressure on the dad to pay child support and keep it there as much as on the mom, and I suspect that would significantly change the whole equation when it comes to “unwanted’ pregnancies. After all, it takes two to tango, but too often the mom alone is expected to pay the piper.
20. AAR | December 9th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Ricorun,
Often when I don’t post the link it’s to keep one of the resident or visiting Liberal propagandists from making a comment trying to discredit the source rather than what was stated.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm
I thought I had another link, but can’t locate it right now.
I have lots of ideas on what needs to be done to reduce poverty, some of which we discussed on a B4B thread, but it’s pointless to discuss them again here. As with most issues, any comments only serve as a target for the next passing troll!
AAR
21. phnx | December 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Almiranta,
I would add to your list:
4. Don’t get married until you have a JOB
One of the keys to ending poverty is education. But the leftists are opposed to any change in the education system, which would permit the poor to actually get an education.
Fact is most poor families SUPPORT vouchers. Yet the leftist elite do not, ergo…the poor are left to languish in a broken public education system.
And before you go off Casper, yes, not all public schools are broken, but many are. And there is NO OPTION for poor families.
As long as I can remember, the leftists have been TALKING about improving the public school system…but its still broken. Generation after generation of poor are relegated to this system, and to poverty, as a result of futile leftists experiments to enhance the system.
It can’t be fixed. If you really want to end poverty, let the poor CHOOSE where they will educate their children and then fund it.
After all leftists…you do support CHOICE, don’t you? And is is for the children!!!
You aren’t against the children are you???!!!????
22. TiredofLibBullShit | December 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
With the libs, it’s not about helping people. It’s about making people dependent on government, buying votes and securing their place in society - ALL IN THE DISGUISE OF HELPING PEOPLE.
If they really wanted to help people, they wouldn’t give them the bullshit they have now. How can making people dependent on government - helping. If they try to better themselves in any way - they would lose their “benefits”. So why improve.
And this bullshit that people on government assistance are their because of some outside circumstance - drugs or some other circumstance.
Well let me tell you - out of high school I was a bank teller for 5 years. Close the infamous 9th ward in New Orleans. There they had GENERATIONAL WELFARE - that is all they knew. Gramdmothers (some as young as 34), their daughters and their daughters on government assistance with no way to break the cycle and liberal politicians NOT WANTING TO. Their votes were secured. I saw this too many times. Extraneous circumstances to their predicament - bullshit!!! Also, these individuals knew how to manipulate the system! Checks (yes plural) in different names (last name different, same SS#), driver’s license in another (last name different, same SS#), their savings accounts (some with $10,000 or more - this was early 80s) in a slightly different name. The system is broken and libs don’t want to fix it - again the votes are secured and again in the name of “HELPING PEOPLE”. Trillions of dollars spent with no end in sight and no benchmarks set, no result oriented means of measuring success.
You know the lib mantra - “IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT”.
Now, the famous “single mother with a drug problem” scenario - “She needs that money to feed her children because she can’t, because she can’t break the cycle”. WHY ARE THE CHILDREN ALLOWED TO STAY IN THAT DISFUNCTIONAL HOME??? There are people (non-minorities) who have their children taken away from them, by child protection agencies, if they can’t take care of them. But, let children stay in a drug infested home of a welfare recipient - their votes are secured.
The GREAT SOCIETY is a GREAT FAILURE but we don’t see liberals calling for their end or reformation - why not? They are great ways to secure votes, income redistribution and grow the size of government. Just more socialism/communism to incrementally add to this country and our lives.
23. Hates Cows--Male | December 9th, 2007 at 10:04 am
What a discusting, vile comment. I have no idea what your talking about because you have no idea what your talking about. Your a vile devil.
What a disgusting, vile post. I have no idea what you’re talking about because you can’t write. UneducatedStupidAss…
24. Hates Cows--Male | December 9th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Some of these people cannot work, What?, and yes, they should be helped. However, many of these people can work, but why should they? The Donkaroaches don’t want them to work, so they give them freebies. The war on poverty is lost; we’ve pumped 11 trillion into it, and the casualties continue to mount. It’s time to pull out…
25. FmrMarine | December 9th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
usa
you are LYING, or you CAN’T read.
go back and s-l-o-w-l-y re read my post and SHOW me where i said any one was dumb, or lazy.
maybe you didnt understand the terms i used.
26. FmrMarine | December 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
usa
YOU are PROOF….”liberalism is a MENTAL disease”. Your rants borderline on psychotic ramblings of a twisted muttled mind.
The enemy of GOD?? The enemy of poor?
PROVE these accusations.
27. TiredofLibBullShit | December 9th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
usa,
look at the real world - a world where recipients take their benefits and spend on luxuries rather than feeding and clothing their children. Luxuries - you know jewelry, expensive furniture, electronics, brand clothing and shoes., etc. etc. etc. Saw too much of it for you to deny it.
Watch the news - a good source of information. For example, when the news crews would go into the homes of the “impovershed” while interviewing an individual for whatever reason, the camera would get glimpses of the furnishings and electronics in the homes of those living in poverty - large wood furniture and bedding, rear projection and HD TVs. Then the individual would have on name brand clothes and jewelry etc. etc. And these are the same people who declare that they need more in assistance. All the while, libs would declare that if a Republican is elected they would lose their “benefits.
Another fine example - post Katrina looting. While there were those who looted stores for food, water and diapers - something I have no problem with - since there is a limited shelf life for these. Many individuals helped themselves to luxurious items - electronics, jewelry, etc. etc.. I’ll never forget - the reporter asked an individual why he was looting his reply “I am feeding my kids” - with that the cameraman focuses the camera on what he was carrying - DVD player and stereo. Wow either that is a new food group or he was looking for an open pawn shop or the neighborhood fence to get some cash to buy food - yeah that was it.
usa - why don’t you look into the real world and see what liberalism has reaped - groups of individuals who are so heavily depended on government that they have become mindless slaves to those who have created this failure of a program.
Get a life loser.
28. phnx | December 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Speaking about post Katrina looting…how about the looting of our national treasury by the fraud and corruption that followed.
Turns out that nearly $1 Billion was doles out to fraudulaent claims. Remember it was the Dems who insisted that money pour in without safeguards, claiming that many of these people lost their IDs. So they set the table and their constituents had a feast.
Does it make you proud leftists?
29. Eric T | December 9th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
AAR makes a great point in #17.
In many cases like myself poverty is self inflicted, Bad decisions with my wife’s small business did me in. Some people may find themselves in poverty from drug use, alcohol abuse, buying big ticket items that are more than they can’t afford.
That is why we need good paying jobs, so people can pull themselves out of the hole, thru work.
30. What? | December 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Getting rid of poverty requires both job creation and a social safety net that keep people off the streets by providing basic necessities. That soical safety net should include the resources that will aid the poor to get jobs.
Pretty simple.
I can’t believe some of you are against food stamps. That’s just cruel and stupid.
31. Eric T | December 9th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I think the key is wages that far exceed what someone on welfare/social security/unemployment make.
This is issue that I’m split on, on one side.
There are lots of jobs out there, which is good. Some people I’ve met brag that they make more not working (on govt assistance) than if they were to go back to work. Hearing people say stuff like that angers me. I gotta get up early, get out there and work long hours so the govt can take a big portion of my check and give it to someone who don’t wanna work. I did the work, I wanna keep my money. I have a hard time putting healthy food on my table and I’m working up to 70 hrs a week. on the other side of the coin. I don’t wanna see kids starving and when someone is injured and can’t work anymore, or gets too old. I don’t want them to lose their home and everything they have worked for their whole life. I think a good immigration policy will keep people from coming to this country to leech off the system. And good paying jobs will give people motivation to get out there and make some money, instead of depending on someone else to earn it, bring it home, put it on the table and feed them. But for those that truly can’t work and need some help, I have a soft spot for and it makes it hard to take a position against the poor, weak, or elderly. This is an issue that the democrats will use to make the Republicans look like heartless, greedy people that don’t care about anything but corporate profits. And will be one of the big issues in the 2008 elections.