The writer’s figures are wrong. Since LBJ’s malignant lWar on Poverty began in the ‘60s, the US Middle Class has had almost $20 TRILLION dollars of its incomes confiscated by governments, federal, state and local, to “eliminate poverty.” Yet we have more “poor” than ever.
However, we have millions of government employees getting fine paychecks to administer the hundreds of programs “for the poor.” Poverty would be greatly decreased and the plight of the ghettos and barrios greatly improved if 70% of these destructive government programs would be abolished.
The urban underclass is like a fleet of cars that breaks down continuously, never gets fixed properly, and is a huge drain on the owner's resources. The mechanics who work on these cars don't want the owner to get new cars (for obvious reasons), and because the government owns the cars there is plenty of political influence to keep the owner from replacing them.
Never happen, as that poverty would flood upward to all those "helping" the poor.
This is a weak echo of what Thomas Sowell said a while back - something along the line that if poverty was ever erased in America, hundreds of Liberal organizations and thousands of their employees would be out of work.
“Poverty would be greatly decreased and the plight of the ghettos and barrios greatly improved if 70% of these destructive government programs would be abolished.”
I totally agree, I have said for years that one main thing wrong with how we compute unemployment is that new government jobs are counted as being the same thing as new private industry jobs. I think government jobs should, at the least, NOT BE COUNTED and in fact I think one new government job should be counted as TWO private jobs LOST. The way things are computed now if everyone looking for a job got hired on to a plush position as a tax collector the unemployment problem would be gone with an unemployment rate of zero. Is there anyone, even an idiot liberal, who thinks that makes sense?