Updated date:

Corporate Welfare and the True Nature of the Government's War on Poverty

Brother Can You Spare Seven Trillion Dimes?

The recent passage of the $700 billion bailout package represents a perfect example of the futility and naivety involved in expecting the Government to fulfill it's stated purpose. The public's initial negative reaction was heeded by those who supposedly represent their interests by pausing just long enough to tack on $152 billion worth of additional giveaways. Of course, the uproar was by and large momentary and the Government quickly returned to openly serving the interests of those they actually represent.

B. First cuts are for services required by those most affected by failed policies

1. food banks emptied

2. schools/mental health/disability services

a. lead to increased chance of impoverishment/homelessness

3. sheriff's card – required for employment/removal from public dole

a. momentary expense that would be repaid many times over.

B. Government's outright war on the impoverished.

1. Hostile illegal acts to repress homeless.

a. Statutes against feeding hungry people

i. private citizens using their own funds – alleviating public burden – eminent domain

b. closing public parks

i. taking their ball and going home

ii. punishing all citizens for the crime of being hungry

iii. homeless aren't going to just disappear

c. “illegal assembly”

i. false claims of increased crime rates

aa. people whose needs are being met are less likely to commit crime

bb. costs more to incarcerate than it costs to feed

cc. opportunism precipitated by singular crimes

1. once again, punishing all for individual's action

2. crime in “traditional” society – prejudice laws

3. close an entire bar because of one fight – drinking at stadium

ii. creative counting

iii. government controls permits – selective enforcement

iv. abuse of powers – arbitrary use – opportunity for harassment of law abiding citizens - expansion of powers

v. budget constraints - wasting time/resources

II. Society's views of panhandlers result of government actions and policies

A. Irrational anger at panhandlers.

1. Not simply declining to give

a. continuing homeless status not dependent on your pocket change

b. ceo's, whose actions actually threaten the world economy not giving pocket change to a homeless person, straps on the golden parachute and moves on while co. is left in shambles/no incentive to be accountable/consequences for reckless actions/not held to same standard

2. Being treated as criminals and negatively portrayed as useless tends to become self-fulfilling prophesy.

B. Contrary to belief, society reflects it's government

1. Homeless/unemployed are used as scapegoat to excuse government failures/corporate greed

2. Creation of a selfish, greedy and even hateful populace that lacks the most basic compassions for its fellow man

3. That affect is the true crime, not feeding someone who has made the mistake of being hungry in a land that wastes more food in one day than most people could eat in a lifetime.

4. Why should I be arrested for standing in line, just waiting for bread?