The War on Poverty? It's a War on the Poor!

In 1964, President Johnson declared a War on Poverty.  In a special message to congress, he said, “for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty.” It sounds well intentioned but how has it worked out?  When he spoke those words, 10.5% of Americans between 18-64 lived in poverty. After 50 years and $15 trillion spent in the war on poverty, we've driven the number of impoverished Americans in that same demographic down to... 10.1%.

Wow! All that time and money wasted and it barely made a dent.

If that doesn't demonstrate the utter failure of the war on poverty, here's an even more alarming statistic: according to the Senate Budget Committee, "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011" (source).

Why is it that we're spending all this money yet still not ending poverty? There's a very simple reason that liberals just can't grasp. Here it is: you don't help poor people by just giving them things! It's really that simple.

Just recently, a tourist snapped photo of a police officer giving socks and boots to a homeless man then posted it on Facebook. It quickly turned into an icon of charitable giving and the well meaning police officer became an instant celebrity. For the last couple of days, I've hardly been able to turn on the news or surf the net without hearing liberals gushing over what they consider to be a heroic act of kindness.

Of course, we've since learned this particular “homeless” person might not be a good example of the typical poor person. The ultimate cause of his poverty is more likely mental illness rather than a lack of means. But never mind that for a moment. Let's say that everything we had assumed about the poor fellow when we saw him barefoot on the street, turned out to be true. How exactly would the friendly police officer's kind gesture have helped him? He still would have been homeless. He still would have had to beg. At best, he would have simply been a little more comfortable as he lived on the streets, begging.  It sounds about as charitable as giving him a new cardboard box to live in.

There's an old Chinese saying: If you give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you've fed him for his lifetime. There's not usually a lot I would recommend we learn from the Chinese but, in this case, I think they're on to something. Giving somebody a bite to eat doesn't solve their lack of food problem; it merely sustains them until they're hungry again.

The liberal solution to poverty is to give every poor person a fish each day. Such a solution doesn't do anything to eliminate poverty - it only perpetuates poverty. Giving able bodied people food stamps doesn't make them able to provide for themselves – it only makes them dependent on the food stamps. What's worst is that it robs people of their dignity. We are treating grown men and women like infants who must be cared for – and many of them learn to expect it! Some people actually think they deserve charity.  It's known as the "entitlement" mentality.

The way to help the poor is to stop perpetuating their poverty. Stop treating people like infants by giving them everything. Good parents teach their kids to feed themselves. They teach their kids to poop in the toilet. They teach their kids to tie their own shoes and dress themselves. When children learn these lessons, they can stop wearing diapers and start learning how to become adults themselves someday. Only cruel parents do everything for their kids. As a result, they raise brats.

The ultimate cure for poverty is work. Duh! Proverbs 6:6 says, “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.” If a person is able-bodied, he should work. If he works, he can provide for himself. He can feed himself. He can shelter himself. If a person can take care of himself, he doesn't need to be taken care of. He will no longer need welfare, or food stamps, or section 8 housing, or government assistance of any kind. He can stop being infantile and start having dignity.

Jesus said we would always have poor people among us (Matthew 26:11) so we can never completely eliminate poverty but if we want to reduce poverty, we need to get people to work. We need to stop punishing employers with higher taxes and more regulations, and create an environment that encourages industry. We need to start giving people the skills that make them attractive to employers. And above everything else, we need to stop subsidizing poverty.

The war on poverty is actually a war on the poor and the recipients of government subsidies are victims. I know why liberals have declared war on poor people. It's because they're despots and can only stay in power by oppressing the masses. They want to bring back the caste system so they can reign over a society of peasants. Liberals don't really care for the poor. There's no way. They hate poor people so much that they make them beg!

Isaiah 43:10: Ye are My Witnesses

How do we go about being His witnesses?  Are we supposed to merely live by the word or to also share it with others?  That was the discussion in this video where a tearful woman confronts a street preacher.  I think the preacher nails it.



Jesus said the world hated Him because He testified against it and said its deeds were evil (John 7:7).  This woman seems to believe that if the world hates you, then you're doing something wrong.  I say that if the world loves you then you're doing something wrong.  

The Drake Equation: It Might Sound Good on Paper

Evolutionists are believers in junk science. I've know it for a long time yet I've never become used to their level of absurdity. These people, who claim to be the epitome of scientific inquiry and objective thinking, should simply resign themselves to the fact that they are producing science fiction and not actually practicing science.

Have you heard of the Drake Equation? According to Wiki, it's “a mathematical equation used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.” The formula has been around since 1961, but in spite of decades of searching for extraterrestrial life, the actual number we've detected remains at zero. Of course, secular scientists remain undaunted. Their theory virtually demands there be extraterrestrial life so they continue under the delusion that the universe teems with alien civilizations and the Drake Equation is a way to estimate just how many there might be. From Wiki:

The Drake equation states that:

N = R* · f_p · n_e · f_e · f_i · f_c · L

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets

n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

f_e = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

f_i = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Now, I'm a firm believer in probability. In a recent post, I discussed the Law of Large Numbers where I explained that, given a large enough sample, we can predict the outcome with uncanny certainty. However, we can still calculate probability even in small samples. Consider a deck of cards: I know that there is a 1 in 52 chance of drawing the ace of spades at random. I know there is a 1 in 13 chance of drawing an ace of any suit. I also know there is a 1 in 4 chance of drawing any spade. I am able to calculate the odds because I know the number of cards in the deck, the number of aces, and the number of spades. As we read through the Drake Equation, though, we see a lot of variables have unknown values. How should we go about finding the probability of them? Let's look at a few.

R* is the rate of star formation per year in our galaxy. That's curious. What is the observed number of stars being formed each year? Would it surprise you to know that, even with all our advanced technology, we've never once observed a star ignite? We've seen many extinguished but none formed. Not one time. Ever! So the actual observed rate of star formation per year is zero. Since the rest of the formula is multiplying by R*, the product is necessarily zero but let's look at a few of the other variables for the fun of it.

f_e is the fraction of habitable planets that actually go on to develop life at some point. Now that's funny. We've never once observed life formed spontaneously. Not one time. Ever! So how do we estimate the fraction the planets that would develop life? If we apply the scientific standard of observable and repeatable, then this variable must also be zero. That is the only scientifically valid possibility. Any value other than zero assigned to this variable is merely fanciful speculation.

If we understand the value of f_e to be zero, then f_i and f_c must necessarily be zero as well. After all, if life does not form, then neither will intelligent life nor technology. Once again, any value other than zero assigned to these variables are merely invention. Any other value that scientists assign to these variables does not have any basis in science.

Drake himself assigned some crazy values to these variables. He estimate that 1 star per year has been formed over the life of the galaxy (remember, we've observed zero). He estimated that 1/5 to 1/2 will have planets and stars with planets will have between 1 and 5 planets capable of supporting life (we've actually discovered extra-solar planets so I'll not press this point). Here's where he really looses it: he says that 100% of planets capable of supporting life will not only evolve life but will also evolve intelligent life. Ha! We've never observed abiogenesis and he claims it happened on every planet that could support life. When it's all said and done, Drake believed there are between 1,000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in our galaxy! Incredible!! We've observed none and he believes there could be 100 million.

How does this kind of stuff not get laughed at by the rest of the scientific community? Where is “peer review” and critical examination? Where is going wherever the evidence leads? Are we really supposed to believe there is evidence for even a single, extraterrestrial civilization (never mind many)? This is obviously a case of having a conclusion then looking for the evidence to support it.

OK, I admit that Drake has his critics. However, a belief in extraterrestrial life is mainstream in the scientific community. Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, and many others have all endorsed it. They have endorsed it without a shred of scientific evidence for it. They believe it merely out of faith in their theory. So even though some scientists might nit pick at Drake's equation, they will never dismiss his premise outright because they are too invested in the crackpot idea of ET.

The Drake equation might sound good on paper but it's no more scientific than an episode of Gene Roddenberry's, Star Trek. Drake might as well have calculated the odds of discovering Vulcan.

Happy Thanksgiving, 2012