Story here.
Read it all."After 40 years of failure, they still insist that they want to expand this war, that they think they should pour more money into this war," said Star Parker, president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. "Already, over $3 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty, and so far, we've not seen results."
Parker said the war on poverty has really been a war waged by liberals on four fronts -- "war on the family, the war on thought, the war on tradition and a war on religion."
"The poverty that we see today is directly related to people having children outside of marriage and then not working to support those children," she said.
"They started with the war on the Black family, and they totally destroyed this family," said Parker at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., on Friday. "They spread this message of moral relativism and welfare dependency.
Ouch, eh?
That has to sting liberals like when they get whipped during their S&M recreation or something...
Ms. Parker's opposing critic mentioned in the article asserts, in my understanding, that the fault lies with capitalism's failure to "deliver the benefits of prosperity widely" (meaning he's blaming poverty on the absence of communism, failing to realize that under communism, it's even worse!). Methinks this leftist critic is full of it, merely parroting the communist party line in a well-oiled-by-communications-experts speaking style. I'm not impressed with the claims of this critic, as his claims of "evidence" just don't match my own observations and analyses of poverty and its apparent, logical, common-sense, right-in-front-of-your-eyes true causative factors.
So no wonder I agree so quickly with Ms. Parker. She understands and is realistic, in contrast to her leftist/communist critic, who's merely arguing his own ideology while claiming to have "evidence", forgetting that the evidence to which Ms. Parker refers is also real and valid, indicating beyond all doubt that "social spending" by liberals and commie-lite types like her critic has not done anything at all to reduce poverty. If we travel all over the place, we can see for ourselves how so many people still live in poverty, notwithstanding billions upon billions of tax dollars being thrown hither and tither with the dubious view of eradicating poverty... Come on- we know what causes poverty: liberal/"progressive" extremists encouraging behaviors fostering dependence rather than behaviors of self-sufficiency. Getting more and more people to depend on the state definitely helps the Democrats in the US get a lot of votes, after all!
Self-sufficiency, not state charity, is the way out of poverty. Any intervention by the state must therefore only be done strictly with the intention of getting people to get prepared to go out and work and make their own living, as opposed to drawing a check against the taxpayers' bank account while doing nothing productive and not contributing to the economy and society.
Indeed, liberalism causes poverty. The more liberalism we have, the more poor people we see, plus there's also greater income "inequality" whenever liberalism runs amok!
Just look at the widespread, increasing poverty in Hugo Chavez's communist Venezuela. I believe last time I read about the economic situation there, he had put something like half the people out of work with his distributionist/depenence policies. And look at Communist China... boy, if ever there was a class-based society, that sure is one, and one of the very worst in the history of the world! Incredible income disparity is the rule under CCP rule. This despite that China is extremely wealthy and can afford to take care of the People, but the CCP instead puts the money into weapons and preparations for a world war. And that's only the tip of the iceberg of the horrors of Communist rule in China.
Distributionism doesn't work. It's settled. It's proven. Better agree or else get treated the way the IPCC submissives, the fascist left in general and the crooked-as-gangsters MSM treat those who dare to question their "climate change" dogma. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).
Besides, we hear that we supposedly need twelve million illegal aliens to work in America because there's not enough Americans to do the jobs, or won't do the jobs. So when you hear liberals say one minute that there's a lot of poverty/unemployment in America and then see them turn around and, without any hint of cognizance of self-contradiction, say that there's not enough Americans to do the jobs our businesses need them to do, ask which is the truth: lots of unemployed Americans, or no unemployed Americans. What the hell are liberals trying to pull on us? Do they think we're stupid?
