This story is unavailable.

Refuting: “Poverty is caused by a lack of cash.”

Nice theory, Rutger. Why not actually test it scientifically? Maybe throw cash at a poor population for 50 years, and measure the magic results you predict?

Impossible you say? Stingy America will never agree to such an expensive experiment?

Oh, well, you’d be wrong if you said that.

Because for the last 50 years, since the beginning of LBJ’s “War on Poverty,” the USA has followed your prescription — we throw money at poor people.

When LBJ began his “war,” “…the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing. Between then and now, the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade. Clearly, we have been doing something wrong.”
In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

That’s triple your magic Cherokee $6k — already going to every single “poor” family in America.

We’ve run this experiment. It’s a failure. Cash does not end poverty.

Poverty is caused by……(but that’s another article, isn’t it?)

For now, the stake is driven through the heart of your silliness.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.