Monday, June 27, 2005

Wars on Many Fronts

Republicans are continuing the War on the Poor they declared twenty five years ago upon the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, was was humped to electoral victory on the backs of his mythical "welfare queens" by, contrarily, a large block of poor white voters who believe that poverty is only an unacceptable condition for blacks.

Aside from the curious dynamics of the white underclass in this country, one wonders why self-satisfied Republican millionaires spend so much time planning strategies that do so much damage to the least advantaged in our society. I can only conclude that their hostility stems from the consumer society they've created, with its focus on targeted demographics, a debased culture, marketing surveys, saturation advertising and other such methods to convince us that we indeed must have their various knick-knacks and gee-gaws and juicers that sit unused in our kitchens for decades. If we don't buy their crap, our value to our Republican overlords plummets. And that's the key to understanding the latest War on the Poor launched by the Bush administration: the producers feel free to eliminate those who don't consume in our society, and elimination is, indeed, the correct word.

The Washington Post reports the latest attempt to spray Raid on the poor:

PHILADELPHIA -- A Bush administration proposal to eliminate many of the federal rules requiring public housing authorities to serve extremely low-income people has generated widespread concern among housing advocates who say the change could prove ruinous for the nation's poorest families.

The plan, which is pending in Congress, would allow local housing authorities to charge higher rents, provide lower subsidies, and limit the amount of time tenants can remain in federally subsidized housing to as little as five years. Taken together, the changes would amount to one of the most dramatic policy shifts in the 68-year history of public housing.

Bush administration officials say the proposal suits the president's vision of promoting self-sufficiency and encouraging home ownership. But advocates and local housing officials worry that the changes will result in a reduction in an already inadequate supply of housing affordable to people mired in deep poverty.

Encourage home ownership, eh? As you continue to read the story, you discover just who George Bush expects to go out and purchase a home in today's inflated market:

Perhaps the toughest obstacle officials here confront is the stubborn pervasiveness of deep poverty. Nearly half of the families receiving public housing aid in Philadelphia have incomes under $8,000 a year. And only a fifth reported annual incomes above $20,000, according to the authority

So what happens when these families earning under eight grand a year are turned down for a mortgage? We all know the answer:

''The changes would harm households with the most severe affordable-housing needs," said Douglas Rice, director of housing and community development for Catholic Charities USA. ''The shortage of affordable housing is one of the primary causes of homelessness, and extremely low-income households are most at risk of becoming homeless."

Once this severely impoverished population is homeless, the real damage begins. Most studies estimate that the death rate for homeless men is, depending on the city, anywhere from three to six times the death rate for the general population. The Canadian Medical Association Journal recently reported the results of a study which concluded that homeless women in Toronto between the ages of 18-44 have a mortality rate ten times that of women of the same age in the general population.

One might argue that the funding for subsidized housing is being drained, as so many services in this country are, by the needless flow of money going to Halliburton and other war profiteers. The guns instead of butter argument would of course be correct. But what this proposal really represents is a genocidal policy that the Republicans - and Democrats such as Bill Clinton - have been advocating for years, to wit: they push non-consumers to consume (welfare reform), and if that doesn't work, they simply leave them on the streets to die.

And this is what they consider "compassion".


Blogger Republican Piglet said...

As usual, you're all screwed up in your -- dare I say it? -- logic. Why should I, a taxpayer (well, I would be if I didn't have this thing they call mental unhealth), foot the bill for all the freeloading lazy drug-addicted "people"? And you know who these "people" are I'm talking about.

It's THEIR fault that they're poor. Jesus said, blessed be the poor who pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Do you see them pulling anything up? No, they're too busy raping and shooting drugs into themselves and robbing good hard-working Americans. I just hate the whole lot of them. I wish we had a hundred more prisons to put these mutants in.

I hope the President gives Halliburton a billion dollars to build big huge prison camps out in the West. And when these lazy good-for-nothings finally get thrown off their luxurious welfare lives and out of their decent tax-paid-for housing, they should all be sent to these camps and forced to grow gardens if they want to eat. They can dig wells if they want to drink water. They got to do something for themselves instead of depending on the hard work of the rest of us Americans. They make me sick.

As far as President Reagan, how DARE you slander his good name? AOL recently voted on the best American who ever lived, and President Reagan won hands down. He's the greatest there ever was. He did more for us than Lincoln, Martin Lucifer King, and all the others put together. You need to learn some respect.

9:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home