Utter bollocks. The reason people are still poor and homeless is not that insufficient money is spent on them, but that the money does not help people out of poverty.
Firstly reason is that poverty is defined dishonestly, to include people who are in relative poverty but do not suffer absolute poverty: they have plenty to live on, just less than a certain proportion of median income.
Increased government spending does not bring people out of poverty. I would argue that it cannot, and only freedom and local, private charity can do that (within freedom I include economic and educational freedom as the most important factors). While I accept that you could argue that it is possible to have government schemes reduce poverty it is hard to argue that the ones in place in the US or the UK for example do so. Indeed it seems to trap them at the bottom of the heap.
We are responsible for house pets, so we look after them. The authority issuing a penal sentence is responsible for the care of the prisoner, so looks after his or her needs.
Taking responsibility for others in situations where this is not warranted is a loss of freedom that has caused some of the greatest evils in history. People are responsible for themselves, and in a free society must be. Charity demands that assistance is given, but anything more harms more people in the long term than it helps.
Free people are not wards of the state. That has two sides, the state has limited rights over free people but it also has limited responsibility. Any state powerful enough to give a man everything he wants is also powerful enough to take away everything he has.
Look at a graph of poverty rates in the US. They were dropping fast until the war on poverty began.
Thursday, March 27, 2014 7:56:25 AM
We as a race, deserve nothing more than extinction. We've had millennia to learn to take care of our fellow man. It`s fair time humanity falls into the shadows of forgotten history.