Would all the campaign contributions donated to the DNC be enough to feed all homeless kids and adults in USA?

Question

The DNC spends millions and millions of $ reelecting their politicians to office every year with the promise of eliminating hunger and homlessness. If all that money went straight to charity would the hunger problem be a thing of the past?

Answer 1

No, most of the money would have to be spent on organizing a new gov't agency and watchdog group to handle the issue. Then they would need to raise our taxes to fund it after they ran out of money. Then the money that was raised from our taxes would be re-directed into some other pet project and our taxes would have to be raised again, and so on.

Answer 2

Yes.

According to Wikipedia, "In the 2005-2006 election cycle, the DNC raised a total of US $61,141,823, all of it hard money."

The National Health Care for the Homeless Council claims that there are 600,000 homeless people in America.

If all of the money raised by the DNC was given directly to the homeless, it would come out to about $100 each. Estimates on the average length of homeless vary, from tens of days to years, but most sources I have seen (such as the U.S. Conference of Mayor's Hunger and Homelessness Survey) give an average of about 6 months.

That $100 in donations, spread out over 6 months, would come up to about $16 a month for each homeless person. That's not much, but I guess it could provide ham and cheese sandwiches, water, grains, and some vegetables.

So, according the facts I've seen, all the campaign contributions to the DNC would be enough to feed all homeless kids and adults in the USA...at least somewhat.

Of course, the DNC doesn't just believe in feeding the homeless, they also want expanded health care, more child care, and a multitude of other expanded programs. Redirecting donations wouldn't be enough to cover everything they want, so I guess they'll have to continue trying to get what they want with other people's money.

Answer 3

No, as long as you are giving people bread and circuses like the Romans did, you are not helping them. Even Jesus Christ said that if you teach a man to fish than he can feed himself for life. If you give him a fish for today he will be back tomorrow. The best policy is to enact laws at the local levels that help out people to find a trade so that they can support themselves. No work, no food. There are some food banks that require people to do so many hours of community service before they can get groceries. This is a win win situation for all.

Answer 4

No, it would not solve the problem. The root of the problem is not a lack of money, but a lack of incentive...or better yet too much incentive to not work. Rather than giving the homeless kids and adults food and homes, why don't we educate them so that they are capable of working, earning a living, and not being poor anymore? Wouldn't that be better than giving them food for a day? And, believe it or not, this is what liberals are supposed to be for.

Answer 5

Doesn't the RNC do the same thing? They actually spend more than the DNC. Of course, they don't care anout the homeless or the hungry, just the wealthy.

Answer 6

With all of the money that Republican incumbants are wasting in their attempts to keep their seats, would we be able to put a dent in the National Debt?

Answer 7

probably...but they DONT work to stop the hunger. they work to further their own gain, and they arent very good at that. democrats do things to make the public happy. republicans do things because they need to be done

Answer 8

100 times over, and the same goes for all politicians:(

Answer 9

uh... then the Republicans would win again and continue to ruin our nation until money was worthless and everyone would be poor...

yeah... that sounds like a good idea...

Answer 10

look ma... i brushed my teeth