Race Hustler Wants More Spending for the "War on Poverty"--It Seems $16 Trillion Isn't Enough
The nation's foremost race hustler is in the news again, agitating for more spending in the "War on Poverty". Oh, and he wants a "radical reordering" of our economy, because the Consitution is apparently an arcane relic with no particular relevance to race hustlers.
Jesse Jackson appeared on MSNBC yesterday and let it be known that President Obama better enjoy his vacation now, because come January, Jackson expects a lot from the President. Not only does he want a renewed commitment to the war on poverty, but he also wants the President to go right to Congress and to stick up for the women and children Jackson meets in homeless shelters who apparently are working every day and still can’t afford the rent.
Jackson has seen enough and calls for “a radical reordering of our economy, bottom up, because those, the very top are drowning in wealth. It’s paper-driven not even productivity-driven.” Given Jackson’s unique and mangled pronunciation of so many words in the brief clip, it sounds like Jackson is actually the one under water and drowning... Overall it’s debatable which is crazier: the radical rearrangement of the economy or the idea that Obama wants economic advice from Jackson.
I can answer that question.
Since the inception of means-tested welfare programs in 1964, Americans have spent $15.9 trillion on the "War on Poverty".
Coincidentally, our national debt is approaching $15 trillion and is projected to top $20 trillion by the end of the decade.
After adjusting for inflation, America's welfare expenditures are 1300% higher than in 1965. And the results have been absolutely catastrophic. But the documented failures haven't stopped President Obama and the Democrats from charting a course for massive new spending programs, at a time when the country can least afford it.
A record number of Americans -- 3.7 million -- fell into poverty in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. And the percentage of poor today is virtually unchanged from what it was in 1966. America's poverty rate stays within a range of 11 to 15 percent, year in and year out, no matter how many trillions in money borrowed from our children we spend.
Worse still, unbridled welfare programs have insidious impacts on society
The out-of-wedlock birthrate is now 40 percent and the African-American out-of-wedlock birthrate is a shocking 72 percent. But when the "War on Poverty" began, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was just 7 percent.
Of 23 peer-reviewed U.S. studies since 2000, 20 found that family structure directly affects crime and/or delinquency. Research "strongly suggests both that young adults and teens raised in single-parent homes are far more likely to commit crimes, and that communities with high rates of family fragmentation (especially unwed childbearing) suffer higher crime rates as a result."
In The Atlantic Monthly, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead states that the "relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime."
What legacy media and Democrats won't tell you is this shocking fact: the statistical link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is conclusive. The more welfare society provides, the more single-parent families society creates.
There have been dozens of studies that link the availability of welfare benefits to out-of-wedlock births. One study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.
Research for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.
In 1995, Dr. Patrick Fagan wrote a seminal summary of the situation: "Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers... High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers... The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers... Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods... Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime... Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married."
To summarize these facts (in simple words for any Democrats reading along): not only has the "War on Poverty" been a $15 trillion failure, it has actually caused more misery, more poverty, and more violent crime than if we had never spent that money in the first place.
President Obama wants ideas to help balance the budget. Here's one: end the failed "War on Poverty", once and for all.
References: Washington Examiner, 12/12/10, "Let a vigorous economy fight the War on Poverty"; Heritage Foundation, 9/16/10, "Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty."
I've never read such a concise and well put together posting on the evil effects of subsidizing poverty
Sadly, I'm sure most of your readers on already convinced-if only huh?
Wow... Concise, fact-based, with historical reference. Who could argue?
I mean besides the satan, democrat, news media, hollywood quadfecta.
Which is why I hope there is a special place in Hell for Jesse Jackson.
Absolutely correct logic, but impossible for the tree-hugger type morons who vote Democrat to understand. The only solution unfortunately would be to force an abortion and then to sterilise anyone who tries to have a child while on welfare. "Unfortunately" because it wouldn't be accepted in wimpish USA, while it works in China. Simpy cutting welfare will never work, as the "plight" of unmarried mothers will cause pathetically stupid voters (always more than 70%) to sob and steal money from workers to subsidise these "sad" people. Reverse Darwinism is why the USA is stuffed.
IMHO this particular page has to be one of the all time greatest internet pages ever speaking from the point of view of a recently retired person who worked in the private sector for forty plus years...
I have helped others put together similar pages but DB's work is not merely a work of signicant historical precedence but because it accurately and succinctly details the seeds of destruction of United States and it our own damn fault...
The scope and range of this con about poverty is staggering.
It blinds people to the greatest of truths.
Liberty floats all boats.
Post a Comment