English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you were the Prime Minister or the President

Would you prefer to poor money into the war in Iraq or to domestic programs ?

2007-06-01 13:31:22 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

8 answers

The working poor. It's a cycle that needs to be broken in the US, we don't want them aborted, but we don't provide health care or a quality education to the poor. So then when they grow up in squalid neighborhoods with bad teeth, poor eyesight, and asthma, with no job prospects, we can just blame them for their own problems and put them in jail for robbing a bodega because they couldn't get a job with their crappy high school diploma.

2007-06-01 13:37:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The War in Iraq for sure. Our domestic programs are overly funded now. They need to be reduced not increased. People in poverty and the working poor need to find ways to advance their positions on their owns. The only ones responsible for the states they're in are themselves.

The war in Iraq is just a part of the overall War on Terror and our continued fight in it protects Americans. I can do nothing but support that.

2007-06-01 21:36:28 · answer #2 · answered by Dan 4 · 0 1

We pour a ton of money already into or domestic programs. I have to say our foreign interests need attention for now. If I were president I would start cutting some domestic spending like welfare 1% a year to force people to make it a good and efficient system and only those that need it are using it.

2007-06-01 20:36:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

We are already doing both. There are enough programs for the poor in this country. People just need to use them as a stepping stone to a better life.
When government provides assistance many people become dependent on the aid and get lazy.
We used to have generations of people on welfare and having children to increase their monthly checks.
Now that time limits have been placed on those programs, most of those folks had to reenter the work force.
I am all for helping poor people, as long as it's help and not total support.

2007-06-01 20:42:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

We've battled poverty for ages, but it wasn't welfare programs that spiralled our nation into a tremendous
national debt. That was caused by the war, so there is less money to aid people in need.
Thanks to war debt, the poverty issue isn't going to go away.
As long as Bush is in power, the war isn't going away.
No easy choice with this question.

2007-06-02 00:41:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

'Domestic programs' mostly amount to transfer payments, which I'm against on general principal. I think pouring some money into wrapping up the war would be a better use of tax dollars.

2007-06-01 20:38:13 · answer #6 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1 1

Well certainly not into government handouts that only prevent people from making something of themselves... so I guess that leaves *the war in Iraq*

2007-06-01 20:35:41 · answer #7 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 1 2

Its easy the War, the poor , most of the time chose their path.

2007-06-01 20:37:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers