Why are you so intent on accusing Christians of failure to help the poor when in fact they've always been known for the opposite?
The question is whether they are helping the poor enough. If you've given your last two mites, you've done all you can but if you keep one mite back for yourself....
Why do you think Matthew removed that important phrase to write a 'twistable' story when retaining it would have left matters no more or less debatable than Mark's account?
Maybe he didn't consider the phrase important. Maybe he went for lunch and lost his place. Maybe he didn't care whether some goober two thousand years in the future would be confused.
So which is it? Is nothing impossible, like the eradication of poverty or will the poor always be with us?
Instantaneous eradication of poverty is possible but creation of poverty is an ongoing process. You might as well ask if it's possible to prevent earthquakes. Hypothetically, a world could have been created with no earthquakes and no poverty - but it wasn't.