Back to the subject at hand:

"The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that's almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty? The answer is - it can't."

50 Trillion / 320,000,000 is $156,250 per person spent on eliminating poverty in the last 50 years. What could you do with $156K ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really? we're going to argue about whether or not we should provide food and healthcare to poor and/or sick children?

We've spent too much on little babies, huh?

And then you will scream about the war on Christians or whatever

Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably

I don't follow Christ. Who said I did?

Do you follow Ayn Rand?

Why don't you tell me. You seem to know me....

"Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really? we're going to argue about whether or not we should provide food and healthcare to poor and/or sick children?

We've spent too much on little babies, huh?

And then you will scream about the war on Christians or whatever

Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably

I don't follow Christ. Who said I did?

good for you. do you want a cookie?

Yeah, that angle didn't work so well for you did it. But you'll try another, rather than honest debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really? we're going to argue about whether or not we should provide food and healthcare to poor and/or sick children?

We've spent too much on little babies, huh?

And then you will scream about the war on Christians or whatever

Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably

I don't follow Christ. Who said I did?

Do you follow Ayn Rand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really? we're going to argue about whether or not we should provide food and healthcare to poor and/or sick children?

We've spent too much on little babies, huh?

And then you will scream about the war on Christians or whatever

Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably

I don't follow Christ. Who said I did?

good for you. do you want a cookie?

Anonymous wrote:really? we're going to argue about whether or not we should provide food and healthcare to poor and/or sick children?

We've spent too much on little babies, huh?

And then you will scream about the war on Christians or whatever

Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably

I don't follow Christ. Who said I did?

really? we're going to argue about whether or not we should provide food and healthcare to poor and/or sick children?

We've spent too much on little babies, huh?

And then you will scream about the war on Christians or whatever

Stop pretending to actually follow Christ - you are failing miserably

Anonymous wrote:

No, I fixed that for you. You're welcome.

BTW, "general Welfare" is not what you think it means. See: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

from James Madison, the main author of the U.S. Constitution. He tells you exactly what it meant in writing the "general Welfare" into the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:
Article I - Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Those outline the duties of the federal government.

It's right there in the U.S. Constitution: provide for the common defence.

Welfare? Yes.

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

The poverty rate was 22% in 1960, and it was much worse for black people. Most black people were poor before 1960. Now most black people are middle class. Social Security keeps up to half of all seniors out of poverty.

The initiatives will never be 100% successful because we have a democracy, where politicians battle about these types of policies. Historically, conservatives have fought anti-poverty programs tooth and nail. That, by definition, will cut effectiveness. And that's evident in the South, where poverty rates are by far the highest. The Bible Belt.

What would poverty look like without governmental redistribution of wealth? More like it does in developing countries.

Article I - Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

------------------

Those outline the duties of the federal government.

It's right there in the U.S. Constitution: provide for the common defence.

Welfare? No.


BTW, "general Welfare" is not what you think it means. See: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

from James Madison, the main author of the U.S. Constitution. He tells you exactly what it meant in writing the "general Welfare" into the Constitution.



You're welcome.

How much have we spent on the defense budget in the last 50 years? And yet we're still fighting wars! Obviously, all of that money was wasted, and we should stop funding defense.

Very true, but you wouldn't know it from the conversations here. I keep hearing the children are going to starve!

I would submit that for the plight of those on poverty as compared to other countries, the poor in the US are much better off. Are they $50 trillion better off? Probably not, but you cannot compare how people were living in poverty in the 1930's as opposed to today.

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure

"This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution. Last year, government spent $943 billion dollars providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans. (That figure doesn't include Social Security or Medicare.) More than 100 million people, or one-third of Americans, received some type of welfare aid, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. If converted into cash, this spending was five times what was needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

The U.S. Census Bureau has just released its annual poverty report. The report claims that in 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were poor. Remarkably, that's almost the same poverty rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty started. How can that be? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no effect on poverty? The answer is - it can't. Census counts a family as poor if its "income" falls below certain thresholds. But in counting "income," Census ignores almost all of the $943 billion in annual welfare spending. This, of course, makes the Census poverty figures very misleading. The actual living conditions of households labeled as poor by Census are surprising to most people. According to the government's own surveys, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television; half have a personal computer; 40 percent have a wide-screen HDTV. Three-quarters own a car or truck; nearly a third has two or more vehicles."

More:

http://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-war-poverty-50-years-failure


50 Trillion? How much is that per person (using today's population numbers)?

50 Trillion / 320,000,000 is $156,250 per person spent on eliminating poverty in the last 50 years. What could you do with $156K ?