Give up Christmas for the poor?

Over at Think Progress they are claiming that America’s homeless problem could be solved with the amount of money Americans spend on Christmas decorations.

This, of course, is wrong. The American War on Poverty began in the 1960s and literally trillions of dollars have been spent and the poorest of the poor are still homeless. Americans are now spending a trillion dollars a year on means tested welfare – not including any of the faith based or private charities such as the Salvation Army – and there are still many thousands of homeless people.

Here is Ronald Reagan in 1964.

Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that seventeen million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet! But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is ten times greater than the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now, do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty!

Those numbers have since exploded and yet the problem persists. It is a strange fact, proven over decades at great expense, that you cannot cure poverty by giving people money. In fact, giving up Christmas decorations in an attempt to end homelessness would do little for the homeless and, frankly, destroy jobs in the Christmas decoration industry.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is paved with a desire to help the poor, to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked. The meticulously paved road ends, nonetheless, in hell.

What is the answer to homelessness and abject poverty that exists in a nation where none should? I wish I knew. I do know for certain, however, that it isn’t to seize private property and use it to create soul crushing dependency. The answer isn’t to promote the creation of generation after generation born and bred in a culture that has been ripped out by the roots and replaced with something poisonous to human development.

There is no amount of money that will satisfy the left because there is, in reality, no amount of money that will end poverty. It is counterintuitive, but long term poverty is almost never caused by a simple lack of money. Poverty stalks mankind everywhere and in all circumstances.

Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Give up Christmas for the poor?

  1. RJ says:

    “the meticulously paved road ends nonetheless in hell”

    wonderfully said, the largest majority of poverty, homelessness and welfare state dependants lies directly at the feet of liberal politicians and their constituates who elect them.

    The answer is simple, a reward given for a desired outcome = more of desired outcome. A punishment given for undesired behavior = less of undesired behavior.

    Pols and libs never look at desired outcome they look at their perception of what the desired outcome should have been in their deluded minds.

    There is truth behind the old “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime” It should continue, “if you teach a man to fish and he refuses to fish then he shall starve to death”

    Ask any dog trainer, you dont want your dog to do xyz, you must immediatly give a correction when the dog does xyz.

    You do want the dog to do abc, you must reward immediatly when the dog does abc.

    Libs look at it in a distorted mannor, if they dont want the dog to do xyz they reward when stops doing xyz (they give money/food/clothing/shelter) to those who quit doing xyz. And like a dog the reward is perceived for actions along the line of,

    Oh as soon as I quit chewing on the couch I get a bone, so when I want a bone I’ll quit chewing on the couch… or oh… when I want a handout/dole I simply wont work. Or oh… I get a handout to provide for my children, so since I want more handouts I’ll have more children.

    Libs refuse to admit their policies dont work, they insist that no matter the outcome of a particular policy that it should have worked the way they perceived thus it is not their fault so they do the same things over and over.

    I’m not sure about the 100 % answer to homelessness and poverty in a country where none should exist. One thing to start would be the acceptance that some percentage of the population should not survive childhood.

    Nature kept a balance for thousands of years, populations were held in check via limited food supply, natural disasters, pandemic disease and the ability for a family/tribe/nation to feed and defend itself.

    The large scale food production allowed by the industrial revolution and subsequent move from small group survival to large groups being provided food/shelter and protection with more and more dedication to filling free time with “entertainment”.

    Although it is hard to watch someone suffer and die from lack of food or shelter is it truely any more moral to prolong the suffering by providing just enough to ensure survival?

    When the individual has demonstrated time and time again they have no intention of helping to better themselves or their offspring is it truely a good thing to ensure their survival and survival of offspring?

    Lots of world charities show photos of starving children while begging for funds, it is wired into our brains to care for offspring.

    By pouring thousands of tons of food and medical care into areas never intended to support large populations we have spread the same failure of abject poverty and homelessness and suffering world wide,

    We are quickly bringing the same result here, pouring funds into unselfstainable areas only resulting in prolonging and causing more of the same.

    Yeah I know it’s not very charitable thinking at this time of the year.

  2. James says:

    Leftists run under the assumption that private monies are really public, to be used to solve whatever social problems they see fit.

    We Revoists know nothing good can come from theft, no matter the intentions.

  3. BrunDawg says:

    Not to mention the few (?) families who have been designated as living in poverty and will be getting a new television for the Christmas that others are asked to forfeit.

  4. fubar says:

    slightly O/T but..
    what # of homeless people are mentally ill ?

    the Lanterman-Petris-short Act of 1967 (in CA), which restricted involuntary commitment of the mentally ill lead to the countrywide spread of ‘homelessness’ numbers, because state institutions were cruel and unusual ‘punishment’and denied the ill their “rights” (but it was all blamed on Reagan in the 80’s )
    (i was coincidentally reading about this this morning – )

    hey i have an idea, let’s have those advocating giving homes to the homeless, including the mentally ill, BUY the house next door to THEM and see how THAT works out?

  5. notamobster says:

    They’re not mentally ill – they stand naked, knee-deep in a puddle, during a thunderstorm – because they’re misunderstood. 🙁

  6. RJ says:

    @ fubar, a large percentage per my experience as a street cop in south dallas in the early 90’s. I’d say in the 85-90 were truely mentally ill, the others choose the life of freedom and lived on handouts and gov subsidy.

    most were so out of touch with reality they were nearly animals. mostly skitzo by nature or chemical burn to brain.

    • notamobster says:

      RJ – my reference was to a schizo I encountered in a torrential downpour, in his underwear, knee-deep in a puddle. He kept saying they were coming for him, if I remember correctly. Turned out, he was off his meds for 2-3 days. Truly dangerous people, we just let em walk the streets until they go nutso one day, then it’s “why didn’t someone stop him”?

      Kinda like our ghetto investigations. I walked to a porch with 20-30 people on it one night, after responding to a drive-by shooting. The porch was 100′ from the point of the shooting – and it was the target! When I asked if anyone wanted to talk… Nothing. Then, they complain that we don’t do our job – when they attack each other for ‘snitchin’.

      (Dumbest shooter ever, btw!)

  7. TN-Cat says:

    This past weekend I was staying in downtown Indy.
    Friday morning I went downstairs to Starbucks and got a coffee and Blueberry muffin. Went outside to have a cigarette and a guy rides up on his bike and says he is struggling and hasn’t eaten in a couple days. I gave him the bag with the muffin in it. I watched him ride away and throw the bag into the street.

    Saturday morning, same routine, same guy rides up with the same story.

    I told him to go scrape the crumbs of yesterdays muffin off the pavement.

    • notamobster says:

      I had a similar situation in Detroit years ago, TN. I was fresh out of Tech School and heading to my first duty station. Outside smoking a cigarette at the Greyhound terminal and a guy gave me a sob story. I went across the street to a drug store and bought some ritz crackers and a summer sausage. I offered them to him and he knocked the food out of my hand, grabbed my forearm and said “I don’t want your f-kin food.”

      Never one for being manhandled, I put a nasty wristlock on him and planted his face in the pavement, and politely reminded him that he should never again think about putting his hands on me. I think ‘don’t take my kindness for weakness’ probably found it’s way into my expletive-laden response, too.

  8. AFB says:

    Agreed, TN-Cat. WHile some of the homeless are genuinely mentally ill, almost all that I’ve seen here in the reddest of the red states do not WANT food, nor do they want to work. While my compassion isn’t gone, it’s a hell of a lot more selective these days. I’m tired of seeing a bunch of lazy, worthless parasites making the situation worse for those who really ARE in need of help.

  9. RJ says:

    TN-cat … 🙂 made my day…

  10. messup says:

    Was at gas station the other day. A young looking fellow about 29-years old engages in a lite conversation saying he was in town for the holidays and needed one dollar for gas to go 30 miles to a nearby suburb. Seemed odd, one dollar for one gallon of gas to go 30 miles away? A smart car, possibly? Yes, a Fred Flintstone, “yabba-dabba-doo” car with “Dino” the dinosaur as his sidekick!

    This seemed to be a similiar ploy, once aired on HBOTV, where addicts ply public places for small change, enough to buy one gram of some illegal substance… just sufficient to have them repeat this several times each and every day.

    On street corners, so-called “Vets” stand with cardboard signs having cryptic words of “need gas for travel, need pocket change for whatever and will work for a (fill in the blank).”

    Most homeless “vets” aren’t “Vets” at all but addicts per many documentaries and UTube videos.

    There are some 95 million (estimated) Americans on some form of government assistance programs.

    Remember those phoney “WorkForce” programs leading to dead end “jobs?”
    Local municipalities and newly sprung “labor expert consultants” were the only ones receiving and benefitting from this government largesse…and still are!!!

    Nah! to correct this Washington DC bred “criminal enterprise” will take a humongous effort by moral, honest patriots.

    We The Elite People of Culture of Corruption in Washington DC will only stay in power to perpetuate this Kabuki Theatre they’ve designed and are carrying out in the name of “saving the poor!” Pray. Amen.

  11. fubar says:

    i wasn’t trying to imply that all homeless are mentally ill.

    leftist policies like the Lanterman-Petris-short Act exacerbate a situation into a bigger problem, which results in more statist control and throwing more money at it. FORWARD!

    you can’t force people to act responsibly, especially not by giving them everything.