Posted by
ApolloSpeaks on Sunday, February 05, 2012 1:17:00 PM
"The poor are neglected," says Arianna Huffington.
Arianna Huffington opens up her Sunday column with this outrageously false statement that only a radical leftist could make: "This week, America's poor, a group largely neglected by politicians, was front and center in the national conversation... (see)"
The poor are what? Largely NEGLECTED by politicians? Neglected relative to what country and foreign politicos Arianna? I asked these questions with the following rant which the moderators at HuffPo refused to post because it was the politically incorrect truth and pained whomever read it:
"Due show us Arianna a nation that's done more for its poor than the United States of America. Show us a nation that's transferred more taxpayer's dollars to the underclass than this great, good, caring compassionate country. Since LBJ launched his War on Poverty in 1967 how many trillions of dollars have been doled out to help the "forgotten, disregarded, neglected" poor that leftists are forever crying about? The answer is shocking: a whopping, staggering, unheard of, mindboggling $15.9 trillion (exceeding the current national debt)-or, beginning with the Revolutionary War, $9.5 trillion more than America has spent on all its other wars combined (see). $15.9 trillion over a 45 year period averaging out to $355 billion per year on the poor is your idea of "neglect" Arianna?"
Having been a radical leftist (much like today's anti-Wall Street loons) it's not hard to imagine how an Arianna Huffington would've responded to my post. Indeed, she would have answered in the affirmative insisting that we are in fact being neglectful with a statement that would go something like this:
"The problem with poverty programs wasn't that we spent too much money, Apollo; but that we didn't spend ENOUGH."
Didn't spend ENOUGH? How much then is ENOUGH, Arianna?
There's only one way that a spread-the-wealth utopian leftist-who denies that poverty in a free, prosperous, opportunity rich, upwardly mobile country like ours is mostly a values problem, not a social justice problem (with the rich victimizing and exploiting the poor)-would answer this question:
"By "enough" Apollo I mean spending what it takes to end poverty in America and abolish the underclass."
In other words, no limits should be put on public spending when it comes to aiding the poor. We must spend baby spend doubling, tripling or quadrupling down if need be on the $15.9 trillion already spent warring on poverty. It means going for broke many times over-raising the pain of our bankruptcy to the nth degree of economic catastrophe-until poverty is defeated and we win a great victory for "economic fairness" collapsing America into an egalitarian nightmare where the middle class is destroyed and there's only very few rich and the squalid, oppressed, dehumanized masses of the poor.
Postscript: Debates with HuffPo Lefties
The following comment was posted by a Huffpo lefty Perry Logan on Arianna's article praising Bill Clinton's anti-poverty policies over Barack Obama's. Following the comment is my response (which HuffPo posted):
At the prayer breakfast, Obama no doubt glided over the record-breaking increases in poverty that have occurred under his watch. In case you're interested, the only guy in town who has done anything significant for the poor is Bill Clinton. The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998--the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998. Child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.
That's why I don't believe Obama is a centrist Democrat. If he were a centrist Democrat, the poor would be doing much better. Obama's poverty figures more closely resemble those of a neocon.
Apollo replies: