Ever wonder how we can spend trillions of dollars on war, but we can't feed and shelter the poor?

Answer 1

Oil is a valuable commodity. Humans are expendable.

Answer 2

"Lyndon Johnson’s economic advisors warned in 1964 that poverty rate, in the absence of federal action, could be as high as 13 percent by 1980. After sixteen years of multibillion-dollar programs, the poverty rate at the end of that year was 13 percent…"

"–if indeed the problems are a matter of too little money. As a rough-and -ready calculation, assume that the U.S. has 7.5 million families below the proverty line and that on the average it would take a $12,000 income to supplement to bring those families above the proverty line. Both numbers represent the high end of the proverty problem as it has existed in the last decade. Even so, to erase proverty would cost only $90 billion, at a time when federal expenditures on “cash and noncash benefits for persons with limited income” as the federal government’s Statistical Abstract puts it, are passing $150 billion. Without adding a dime to the federal budget, we could, right now, bring every family above the proverty line and have something on the order of $60 billion left over"


Part of the problem is that most of the money spent to help the poor winds up in the pockets of bureaucrats.

But if you did just cut checks that might not work either.

" The United States government proved it for us back in the 1970s with a huge demonstration project known as the Negative Income Tax Experiment. A guaranteed income will produce significant reductions in work effort. Those losses will be concentrated among young men. To end poverty by writing checkes is an efficient way to increase the size of the underclasss, not reduce it. "

Good luck but you can't spend your way out of this problem.

Answer 3

I would love a program I like to call Single Generation Welfare. These despondent poor people recieve government aid if they agree to also "tie the tubes" or "cut the cords". If they have kids they are removed from their care and brought into government institutions where they are forced to get the education they will need instead of becoming crack dealers. It would cost a hell of a lot, but in 30 years there would be a much better America.

Answer 4

The trillions (actually billions, but who's counting?) we spend on war has a tangible benefit. Terrorism creates poverty, by destroying homes, lives, and prosperity. For the greater good, we have a moral demand to fight against terrorism. Whether you agree specifically about any war (such as Iraq), you should agree that we can't have another 9/11, and that's worth spending money.

On the other hand, think about what causes poverty. Can giving out more welfare checks help somebody stay in school? Can they prevent someone from getting pregnant before they are old enough to have a real job? Are you willing to lock up alcoholics and drug abusers, and put them in jail until they complete treatment? These are the types of things that cause poverty.

Money doesn't help these things, it only enables the poor to stay poor easier. If a young pregnant couple isn't getting those welfare checks, they may be more likely to give the baby up for adoption, so they can go to college and avoid poverty. Drug abusers get paid to be drug abusers. Less welfare means that people make decisions that lead to being more wealthy.

Answer 5

There could be a way to solve the hunger problem. If all of these famous actors, football, baseball, basketball players, etc. that makes millions a year could give a small percentage of their wages, then that could feed the people. We see all of these adverts to feed the hungry overseas, why don't they worry about feeding the ones here in the States first then worry about other countries.

Answer 6

Actually we are borrowing the money because it is a matter of national security. Now if you'd like to debate through equivocation that feeding the poor is "national security," we'd be in a totally new debate.

Answer 7

How about we send the poor to war..... think about it they have a job....shelter etc... Ok so maybe that is a little cynical, but the reasons behind poverty need to be addressed the answer is not to throw money at the problem. We have comitted ourselves to a war in the middle east and wheteher you agree with that or not, our troops there deserve the best equipment money can buy, so that those who choose (and part of poverty is a choice) can continue to be poor.

Answer 8

Ever wonder why the so called poor dont want to work?Most excuse of being poor is laziness.I raised two children with no childsupport and no welfare.Money was tight,I worked 3 jobs but you know I didnt depend or will I ever depend on the government to take care of MY RESPONSIBILITIES. There are many "poor"that should be institutionalized as many have mental disorders.But a good many of them are just too damn lazy to work and want the hand outs and then complain about the free hand outs.The war is to protect us from another 911 attack.Gee go figure??????

Answer 9

Because there aren't many poor people funding politicians, but there's a lot of arms company Chief executives who are.

Give a couple of million to aid a presidential campaign and receive billions of dollars of contracts in return.

Answer 10

Sux, huh. We could be feeding and sheltering the poor, but the republican govt doesn't seem to care about anybody except the rich.