Think Progress is out with another “we could end homelessness with the money Americans spend on…….” line of propaganda. In this case, they are saying that we could end poverty with the money we spend on Christmas decorations. This is a bogus claim, if throwing money at poverty, and homelessness were going to end it, it would have been over decades ago. Smitty nails it
Memeorandum features this headline from Think Progress:
We Could End Homelessness With The Money
Americans Spend On Christmas Decorations
This is false. It could only be true if the complex problem known by the misleading label ”homelessness” were just a matter of money, but it’s not.
Homelessness made headlines in the 1980s and was exploited for purposes of partisan propaganda by liberals who saw an opportunity to dramatize what they construed as consequences of “Reaganomics.” In fact, as researchers discovered, homelessness is primarily caused by non-economic factors: mental illness, substance abuse and family disruption.
All very true, but there is the question I would love to ask Liberals who always demonize Republicans for being greedy. If Liberals truly buy that line of thinking fine. But, I must ask this question. Why do Liberals NEVER say if President Obama donated all the campaign contributions he got, we could “end poverty”? Why do they never look at themselves? Why do Liberals always look at consumerism and blame it, as if consumer greed was allowing poverty, or homelessness to continue? Why do they never look in the mirror? I think we all know why? Liberals expect OTHER people to sacrifice. Liberals expect everyone else to get it done. And of course, Liberals want the government to fix homelessness, and other societal ills, by
“taxing the rich” and spreading the wealth around.
Well, Michael Bloomberg could, and just has. Victory Girls provide the story
You’d think under a crisis like Hurricane Sandy, Bloomberg could let up on the food nanny stuff. But oh no. As victims of Sandy starve, Bloomberg is banning food donations from all government-run homeless shelters. Why? Because they can’t verify the salt and fat contents.
So you see, you might be starving to death. But under Bloomy, at least you won’t get fat! That’s something to be thankful for. Right?
In one of NYC’s darkest hours, with resources stretched thin in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is showing his priorities with a ban on food donations to homeless shelters. No, not because of food contamination, but because the city can’t properly assess salt, fat and fiber in donated food and thereby ensure starving people are getting the optimal levels of nutrition. Can’t have dumpy-looking homeless people on the streets! We knew Bloomberg was a health nut, but maybe he’s just anti-food? Maybe put this one to a vote — it’s hard to imagine what harm fresh soup and bagels (two items that have already been turned away) could do to a hungry person.
Fanaticism is a dangerous thing, especially when you combine it with Little Man Syndrome and a runaway ego
Reason TV has just named their Nanny of the Month for March. And it is none other than Mayor Nanny Bloomberg
This month Alabama lawmakers were itching to make it a criminal offense to annoy people online (isn’t that what the interweb is all about?), and a national pollexposed the split personality of Americans who pretend to support individual responsibility, all the while cheering bans on smoking, transfats and the like.
But this month top dishonors go to the man who is perhaps the busiest busybody of them all, the big-city mayor who decided to halt private donations to his city’s homeless shelters (after all, who can be sure that such donations wouldn’t fill homeless people with fatty or salty food?!).
Presenting Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Month for March 2012: New York City Mayor Meddlin’ Mike Bloomberg!
What an incredible bag of arrogance this clown is