BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

American Communism and the Politics of Poverty

by David Yeagley · September 17, 2010 · 11 Comments ·

What does it mean to be poor? Is it a bad thing, or a good thing, or neither, necessarily? How does it affect people, and do people have any control over those affects?

On the very same day, September 16, 2010, two reports on poverty in America were published, one by the U.S. government (as reported by the Washington Post), and one by The Heritage Foundation, a non-profit think tank. They are widely different in their statistics and interpretations. In this tale of two reports, we can see the idea of poverty, American style, and the profound abiguities concomitant.


Davey Crockett (1786-1836) said charity
was not the government’s job
.

Plainly, the American concept of poverty is sheerly material. More accurately, it is based on mean dollars. The 2009 Census report, taken during Barry Soetoro’s first year of presidency, found that about 44 million Americans lived below the “poverty line, according to the Washington Post’s interpretation of the 2010 Statistic Abstract (presumably). The poverty level is set, for a family of four, under $22,000 of income per year. In other words, if you’re in a household whose income is less than $22,000, you’re considered “poor.”

Obviously, all sorts of circumstances are not taken into consideration in these gross generalizations. Nevertheless, the estimates well-suit the Democrat Communist regime in DC. More poor people mean more government programs and more government control. More poor people also mean higher taxes on those that do earn money, and less freedom for them. This is all according to plan.

But The Heritage Foundation has a different story.

First of all, the Foundation said (in 2007) only 37 million Americans live below the government poverty standard. A lot of Mexicans and Third World illegals have moved in since then, true. Secondly, the Foundation says the Census dramatically understates the living standards of low income Americans.

Robert Rector’s 2007 report seemed a stunning revelation, but, when understood, the information is rather obvious to all. Here are some examples of “poverty” from his research:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

These things are fairly well-known. Rector reports on other “emotional” aspects of poverty, like food, clothing, education, etc. The Democrat Communist propaganda is that poor people don’t have the basics. Therefore, the government must provide. Thus, Communism disguises itself under the passion of charity, or “compassion.” Communism becomes a moral imperative in the American Christian environment. This is an amazing transformation of ideolgy. Tyranny and denigration of freedom becomes the solution to human suffering!

“We’re spending more money fighting poverty than ever before, yet poverty is up,” said Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “Clearly, we’re doing something wrong.” (Wasthington Post.) Yet, there are not really more poor people in America. According to the Heritage Foundation’s report of 2007, for example, it’s been about the same number for the last 20 years, between 11.3 and 15.1 percent. So when the Democrat Communists brag about how much money they’re spending, just remember that it is having no discernable effect.

Rector’s latest report shows that the real cause of whatever it is that the government calls “poverty” is immorality. He doesn’t use that word, but, he’s talking about unwed mothers. Illegitimate child birth. Children born out of wedlock usually have no fathers, and share no income that the father would normally provide. In a piece called “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” which was published the same day as the Washington Post propaganda, Rector shows how unwed mothers are awash in dependency. From the top of the study:

According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.

If anything, the Democrat Communist spending extravaganzas only increase poverty. This is the design, of course. The true liberal doctrine is actually against marriage, against family, and against morality. Such social malaise is what enables the tyrants to ascend to power. Poverty is where street thuggery (as in ACORN, LaRaza, etc.) grows like weeds.

But, that’s real poverty–poverty of moral instruction and family stability. That may be found more often among those of lower income, but, immorality is not prejudiced. Wealth does not innoculate against immorality. And the “poverty” of propaganda is not so difficult, if measured merely by material possessions.

Neither are the poor exempt from greed, avarice, envy, hatred, and the more refined evils of human nature. Immorality is not a class condition. It is not related to materialism. This is a fatal error.

Immorality effects the economy, not poverty. To wreck the economy in the name of saving the poor is a Communist delusion here in post-modern America. The Christian ethos of American society is the last chance for Communism to grab at world power. As long as there is Christian charity in the air, Communism can breathe. It lives. Yea, it thrives. Christianity seems the perfect host to the parasite of Communism.

While the Bible does teach that some poverty is cause by abusive powers of wealth (James 5:1-6), it also teaches that the poor are equally responsible for morality before the Lord (Exodus 30:15). While there may not be such a thing as a static dollar, the wealthy are held responsible for any abuse of those under their power.

“The poor shall never cease out of the land,” saith the Lord, “therefore thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to the poor, and to the needy, in thy land.” Deuteronomy 15:11.

Poverty is not a sin, a curse, or a bad mark, in and of itself. Any government approach that attempts to remove poverty is blasphemy. Furthermore, the wide opened hand is to one’s own, “in thy land,” not to the Third World. Charity is at the discretion of the individual, according to his ability. It is not a government responsibility. Thus saith Davey Crockett.

Posted by David Yeagley · September 17, 2010 · 6:26 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Christianity · Communism · Liberalism · Politics · Religion




Read More Journal Posts »

11 responses so far ↓

  • 1 BrockTownsend // Sep 17, 2010 at 7:24 pm   

    Excellent and I believe one of your best.
    “Not Yours To Give” is read in the seventh grade of the Robinson Self-Teaching Homeschooling Curriculum which I can’t recommend enough.

  • 2 David Yeagley // Sep 17, 2010 at 8:26 pm   

    The average person would never chose poverty, but, poverty is the lot of so many. The thing that always fascinates me is that, even in the commonwealth of Israel, with the Lord Himself in the midst of the camp, there was a degree of want, need, even disease. This is the condition of fallen humanity.

    But, if it seems unjust that we should suffer for another man’s sin (Adam), then it is equally unjust that we should benefit from another Man’s righteousness.

    We don’t have much to say about this, just yea or nay.

  • 3 REG // Sep 17, 2010 at 9:37 pm   

    There is a concept of charity in Judeo-Christian Theology that requires an effort to help the poor to become average. It isn’t really there. One should give a tithe of ten percent in some cases or not square the harvest field so that the poor can harvest the remainder. The Bible only admonishes the rich for not helping the poor and according to Jesus they will pay the price for ignoring the poor in the pit.

    Socialism is the government’s attempt to copy and manage a ‘Christian Society’ just like the Muslim religion has its laws , including charity though still not required. However, the government starts the tax at fifteen percent and keeps going up.

    Very good article.

  • 4 Pamela K. // Sep 18, 2010 at 7:33 am   

    Well said, Dr. Yeagley. The government has no right to give away the peoples’ money just because the general consensus is that they’re “helping the poor.”
    America is definitely a land suffering from The Curse of Plenty. Jewish people used to joke with a mock sigh that if only Moses had turned right instead of left when leading them out of bondage in Egypt, they might have been heirs to the vast oilfields in the Middle East. Instead, they got Israel, the land God promised them would be a land flowing with milk and honey.
    You would think He would want His Chosen People to have the valuable resource of oil. Why did the Arabs, their sworn enemies, get all that oil and Israel got basically sand and desert?
    However, thanks to some remarkable findings of economists and social scientists, Israelis now know that it was indeed Divine Providence that has actually protected them from “the curse of plenty, or natural resources.”
    Research now proves that countries rich in natural resources bear a burden that ends up stifling real growth and prosperity for their people. There is definitely a link between the abundance of natural resources and poor economic development. Look at most oil rich Arab nations. While they flaunt their wealth flagrantly, the standard of living in these countries is terrible for the average citizens. Meanwhile, Israelis realized that in order to earn their bread they had to earn a living by the sweat of their brow and their efforts have richly paid off. Today, tiny Israel leads the world in scientific achievement, and medical breakthroughs that are accomplishments nothing sort of miraculous. Furthermore, there is a high quality standard of living in Israel, surpassing even the United States in some areas.
    That’s why, in retrospect, the greatest blessing of Israel is that it was not cursed with an overabundance of natural resources that would make intelligence and brain-power unnecessary. All God chose to give them was “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Perhaps not valuable in the eyes of the world, but milk and honey are the metaphor for the true blessings of life: Mother’s milk, essential for well-being; and honey, the sweetness that makes life worth living.

  • 5 Pamela K. // Sep 18, 2010 at 9:17 am   

    “Neither are the poor exempt from greed, avarice, envy, hatred, and the more refined evils of human nature. Immorality is not a class condition. It is not related to materialism. This is a fatal error.”
    No more was this evident than in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when news coverage of the devastated New Orleans area included footage of people looting stores, not for food and water for survival, but big screen televisons and designer sneakers!

  • 6 David Yeagley // Sep 18, 2010 at 8:35 pm   

    Pam, your 7:33 am post is quite beautiful! Amen!

  • 7 zephyr // Sep 18, 2010 at 9:51 pm   

    In the banner ads at the top of this page (and at the bottom) I see the taxpayer-provided “free” cell phone program now offers 250 free minutes. The limit used to be 120 min/mo–apparently that amount is now deemed to be sub-standard.

    I suppose pre-paid cell phones–along with broadband–are now a “civil right”.

  • 8 Pamela K. // Sep 19, 2010 at 8:00 am   

    “That’s why, in retrospect, the greatest blessing of Israel is that it was not cursed with an overabundance of natural resources that would make intelligence and brain-power unnecessary. All God chose to give them was “a land flowing with milk and honey. Perhaps not valuable in the eyes of the world, but milk and honey are the metaphor for the true blessings of life: Mother’s milk, essential for well-being; and honey, the sweetness that makes life worth living.”
    I would like to give credit where credit is due and attribute most of the above passage to the Rabbi Benjamin Blech. It was his article, “The Curse of Plenty” that inspired my earlier 7:33 post.
    Also, I would just like to add that Magen David Adom, also known as Red Magen David, and translates to mean, “Red Shield of David” is the Israeli version of the Red Cross. This organization is always one of the first, if not the first responder whenever there is a world disaster like the Indonesian Tsunami in 2006, and more recently, the Haitian Earthquake. However, although they were the first to offer help to Indonesia, their request was denied by the Islamic government there.

  • 9 zephyr // Sep 19, 2010 at 9:29 am   

    Pamela–ever notice that the Red Crescent Society (an Islamic charity) only appears when Muslims are the victims of disasters? Unlike most other disaster relief agencies, they only help their own.

  • 10 Pamela K. // Sep 19, 2010 at 10:14 am   

    Yes, I did notice it, Zephyr. They claim it has nothing to do with Islam, but I beg to differ with this argument. Although Red Magen David was founded in 1930, it was not accepted as a member of the International Red Cross Society, which includes the Red Crescent Society, until as late as 2006, because of a discrepancy over the use of the Star of David on their flag. I think the real reason is the same reason why Indonesia refused help from Red Magen David, which is that most Muslims hate Jews and do not recognize Israel’s right to existence.

  • 11 Sioux // Sep 19, 2010 at 2:58 pm   

    I have been interested in this topic for a long time due to the nature of my work in health and hospital planning. Living a long time in a university town, the “poverty” rate was higher than than in other counties due to the abundance of college students. Should anyone worry about these poor students? Not really. They will graduate and go on to a better life. Walter Williams, economist and pundit, also had a lot to say about this issue in a great article back in 2006 about a study,
    “Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We’re Better Off Than We Think,” that disproves the claim that the poor get poorer.

    The study found that only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991–When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people…Throughout history and probably in most places today, there are whole classes of people who remain permanently poor or permanently rich, but not in the United States. The percentages of Americans who are permanently poor or rich don’t exceed single digits.”

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/the-poverty-hype.html

You must log in to post a comment.