Who Is Really Helping The Poor?
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 2:36PM (FLP Opinion by JAR) - Throughout the history, conscientious people have invested time and resources to alleviate the plight of the poor. Historically, churches have provided much of the relief serving food and providing shelter to those unfortunate souls in need. More recently government has taken a larger role.
The conventional wisdom in the media concerning poverty is deceitful and downright insulting. Liberals are praised for their caring and compassion toward their fellow man. Conservative positions are described as cold, heartless, greedy and evil. However, if one considers the policies and outcomes on each side of the debate, nothing could be further from the truth.
On the liberal side, the solution is more government programs, spending and dependency. If you bear children out of wedlock with no means to support them, the government will provide free housing, food, money and healthcare. No strings attached, just maintain a pulse and the goodies keep rolling in. Oh yeah, no strings attached other than needing to remain unemployed and unmarried.
Sorry, but being enticed into a life of idle dependency is not a good thing. Growing the legions of unfulfilled people receiving public assistance is even worse, particularly when you benefit politically from the misery you legislate.
Conservatives think people are better off when they can fend for themselves. They generally agree on the need for some type of safety net, but they think that independence and responsibility are admirable qualities. The more people that don’t need public assistance, the better off we all are. In order for the maximum amount of people to avoid dependence on government, we need to preserve the job engine - small business. By keeping taxes and regulatory burdens low, more people will be employed. That’s the best way to help the poor, give them opportunity.
So does that make conservatives cold, heartless, greedy and evil? Conservatives give more to charitable causes than liberals (four times more according to a 2008 study). In 1997, Al and Tipper Gore donated $353 to charitable causes from Adjusted Gross Income of $197,729. USA Today reported in 2008 that during the prior ten years Joe Biden donated an average of $369 per year to charitable causes. During the years 2000-2004 the Obamas donated an average of less than 1% of their income per year to charitable causes. Seems liberals are more generous when it comes to giving other’s money away. I guess some stereotypes are true.
We can honestly disagree on how to help the poor, but liberals should take a look in the mirror before they start lecturing conservatives about their moral positions on poverty.
Reader Comments (7)
Yeah, this pretty much sums up reality. Too bad these people are too dense to understand how they are being used. Sad.
Democrats are the bane of our existence. This article does a good job of explaining one of the many reasons why. Pompous jackasses.
Once again, the media sets the tone for all debate. If it weren't for them, the masses wouldn't think so highly of what Democrats have done. Just my two cents.
Who's helping the poor? Not those worthless Democrats, that's for sure. If I went to Mexico and I took 10 Congressional Democrats with me, I couldn't trade those 10 pigs for a bag or horse ****. Pardon the crude language, but **** and Democrats are not soon parted.
Well said.
The poor are also much more likely to not be educated which is just how the Libs like their voters.
The Democrats perpetuate poverty by making people dependent on the government rather than themselves.