Liberals Treat the Poor Worse Than Animals

A friend sent the following to me:

“The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing this year the greatest amount of free Meals and Food Stamps ever, to 49 million people.

“Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us ‘Please Do Not Feed the Animals.’ Their stated reason is because ‘The animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.’”

The difference between feeding animals and feeding poor people is that animals don’t vote. In addition, when politicians create dependency programs for the poor in order to get their votes, the politicians insulate themselves from the constant not feed teh animals_02

If you feed deer and squirrels off your back porch, you’re going to get deer and squirrels coming to your back porch every day looking for a handout.

Consider the Javelina or “skunk pig” that originated from South America and have made inroads to the southwestern part of the United States. The following is from the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

“Javelina will likely visit occasionally if you live in a semi-urban area near a wash or other natural desert. Javelina usually cause only minor problems for people by surprising them or eating a few plants. However, people should NEVER feed javelina. This can cause them to become regular visitors and lose their fear of people, creating problems for the neighborhood and often leading to the death of the javelina.”

Politicians don’t have to worry about a similar reaction from the poor people they turn into political dependents because they often live in gated communities or are insulated from the hoi polloi because of their political perks and jet-setting.

For example, President Obama has taken his family on a multi-million-dollar vacation where there’s nary a poor person to be found. Most of the people who live at Martha’s Vineyard and vacation there vote Democrat to justify their extravagant lifestyle. Most are not interested in elevating the poor out of their poverty. They are content to vote for politicians who will use their tax dollars to absolve them of any responsibility. “That’s what taxes are for.”

There’s racialist Oprah Winfrey who was miffed because, as she claims, she was slighted by an employee who intimated that Oprah couldn’t afford a $38,000 handbag.

If Obama, Oprah, and other rich bleeding-heart liberals really wanted to help the poor, they would stop promoting programs that treat image-bearers of God worse than animals.

U2’s Bono, who has seen a lot of poverty worldwide, seems to understand that government programs are not the solution. He said in part:

“Rock star preaches capitalism. Wow. Sometimes I hear myself and I just can’t believe it. But commerce is real. That’s what you’re about here. It’s real. Aid is just a stopgap. Commerce, entrepreneur capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid. Of course we know that.”

The problem is that there aren’t enough votes in it and there’s no way for government officials to get rich when government aid stops.

Peter Greer, president and CEO of Hope International, which is a microfinance organization, shows what often happen when human nature is not taken into account:

“When you try to help, you try to give things, you start to have the consequences. There’s an author Bob Lupton, who really nails it when he says that when he gave something the first time, there was gratitude; and when he gave something a second time to that same community, there was anticipation; the third time, there was expectation; the fourth time, there was entitlement; and the fifth time, there was dependency.”