The money is being spent on wars, and making the rich even richer. The money isn't being spent on the people, or the infrastructure and services that make the quality of life peaceful and prosperous for average Americans. They're leaving poor Americans to fend for themselves, while they're building a nest egg for themselves.

The money is being spent everywhere from
Wars to welfare both corporate and crumbs to the poor.
The government has no incentive to help poor people in a permanent way or else they wouldn't be able to justify their power and massive budgets. This is how they maintain their power, why would they ever give that up? They're not charity. They're an institution built on the initiation of force and coercion. It's about power and control.

At least welfare is putting food on peoples' tables. And when you break it down per person, it's crumbs. The military contractors are making out like bandits.

So how many more trillions should be redistributed towards welfare programs for the poor? What amount exactly would solve it?

just a quick note to you oak, don't know if you know it or not.but... dick cheney used to work for haliburton, he became vice-prez, engineered wars In Afghanistan, and Iraq, haliburton got a majority of military contracts, funny thing is at cheneys urging haliburtons contracts were NO-BID CONTRACTS.

haliburton had billions of military contracts, cheney should have been prosecuted for his sweetheart deals with them.
he never left his haliburton job, continued to work for them, when he was vice-prez.

I don't know. I never looked at starving children as a price tag. Just my way of thinking, I guess.

And the worst part is that the media totally gave Dick Cheney a pass on that. You hardly heard about it. Had to look it up. 'Oh, the vice president's former company receives a no bid contract to provide oil to Iraq in an already controversial war? Non story!'

So are you saying that despite the government war on poverty since atleast the 1960s and trillions of dollars spent, there's still children starving?

I am sure where you live you never actually saw a starving child. If you did you would not help him. You would say let the government do it. A lot of people are poor here. A lot of people on drugs here would use any money they have on the thing they love drugs not their children.

I can picture you donating to crudity to stray animals but not to people.

If there wasn't welfare, there would be children starving. Obviously. People fear we're becoming a 3rd world country. A good way to do that would be to cut off welfare. The second welfare is cut off, we're a 3rd world hellhole, and it really is over.

I didn't ask what you think would happen if all welfare was cut off.

The question is how much more should be spent in order to solve it. How much more money needs to be redistributed in order to Win the war on poverty?

I'll give you the same answer every time. I don't put a price tag on starving children. I don't care how much it costs. Children should not starve in a nation as wealthy as ours.

So I take it that you don't think the government war on poverty can ever be won and that children are stil starving or on the verge of starvation.

oak, I agree. you have all these organizations fighting world hunger, but the republicans could care less, they wouldn't
spend a nickel on a starving child, the great depression proved that. when has a republican ever introduced anything like the war on poverty. which by the way helped many children.

spot on oak, there can be a price tag on deprived children,
many who now live in shelters with their single mothers.

Completely false. Conservatives and republicans give more money to charity and donate more time towards helping people.

I'm not a republican but it's a fact.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

The war on poverty is a failure. As is the war on drugs and the war on terror and any war the government declares that isn't an actual real war with clear objectives.

Government isn't a charity.

I find myself agreeing with both "sides" of the discussion.

During the Great Depression...proud men who would have NEVER asked anybody for anything stood in soup lines. They would preferred to work, but they would swallow pride before starving to death or allowing their kids to starve.

FDR, and his policies kept the country from falling apart.* He created programs that helped people, put Americans back to work , and created safety nets.

The govt. gave people fish, taught them to fish, and stocked lakes with fish....figuratively.

I support govt. agencies and private organizations that teach people to fish and that give fish to those who can't fish (children and the elderly.)


*I got a preview of what a collapse of society could look like during Hurricane Sandy's aftermath.....NJ came this close from descending into Lord of the Flies.A few more days and it would have been total chaos.

Brooks methodology for analysis have been criticized (and not just by liberals).

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

http://bit.ly/1i8SiL2

spot on helen, everything I said is a matter of record.

republicans have one god, MONEY,

democrats have a conscience. will help poor.

Thanks. I just read the first link. The takeaway seems to be that there's not a significant difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to giving to charity, but maybe the difference lies between "moderates" vs conservatives and liberals.

Still, none of this supports the idea that conservative people wouldn't give a nickel to help starving children or support any cause. I get that a lot of conservatives give money to churches. But a lot of churches do work to try helping the poor.

The idea that one whole group of people from a political party is just evil and greedy, just seems ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous. Painting any enormous group with a broad brush is reductive and frankly, just plain old stupid.

Conservatives are...
Liberals are...
Muslims are...
Blacks are...

It's all bullshit. People are people at their core. Some are good, some are bad, most are in the middle.

Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and Europeans:

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013/12/...-and-europeans/

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

"What's more, Republicans appear to give bigger gifts, but Democrats pour in the smaller donations in a big number. Said the survey analysis, "If, however, you zero in on giving that is heavier or lighter than the middle range you find that the parties differ a lot. Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors — 31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americ...article/2580876

There's plenty of Republicans who help the poor, but for some reason you're just full of hate towards them and demonize them. It's simplistic black and white thinking that is absolutely not true. Some people call it Republican Derangement Syndrome.

ive never in my life ever seen any of the evidence of republicans being givers, sorry, that's my take on them.

Simply answer, No.




Thank you, I hope the same for you.

Some people no doubt need it because of things beyond their control and I would never discourage them from doing so.



I agree but it is not impossible and not a "fantasy"



I wish I had learned this in highschool so I didn't have to hear the commentary but that is media at its "best," at a very leat you can learn something if you are a fan of history it is very interesting and a good watch.



As usual, I agree with most of your post I am on both sides but at some point, people relied on receiving fish so much they become dependent on it and not learning how to fish.


FDR- “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is in violation of the traditions of America.”

I cannot take away the fact the some people do need it.

Dude,

Thanks again for the clip. I'm not ashamed to say that there were two guys in the paintings who I had never heard of.

I have a poster of the Black Heritage Postage Stamps and I always joked that the picture used for Benjamin Banneker(same poster in the clip) looks just like Nas.

Great FDR quote. Think it should apply to corporate welfare also.

Just don't forget the missing parts of that quote:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.


You can read that entire SOTU address here
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html

After that bit above the speech goes on to propose that those that cant care for themselves be cared for through social agencies, and for those that can work emergency public employment, both of which many consider filthy commie socialism.

But wouldn't it be better had the Great Depression been avoided in the first place?

My biggest beef with government is that it will create a problem- the Great Depression- and then blame the supposed "free market gone wild" and then expand government welfare and say see"you need us."

Government didn't create the Great Depression. Greed, and a total lack of regard for the poor and working class did. This almost created another depression between 2007-2009, and would have if Democrats had not taken the white house.