Is the US Govt doing enough for poor people? Why or why not?

[Domingo Halliburton]

you guys hate him as a poster but you really are offering no rebuttals to @Napoleon 's points.

 

[Truth200]

The US could cut military spending by 1/3rd and spend it on Infrastructure, Education, and other social programs and we'd still be the most powerful nation in the world military wise, and the returns on that investment in itself will push the country forward even more.

This///

 

[88m3]

Do you not realize Europe has the same aims that the USA does?

France wanted to sell aircraft carriers to Russia

 

[the cac mamba]

Simply put, I see nothing wrong with lobbying.
.

thats a tough one breh

i mean yeah, survival of the fittest, but damn. its concentrated wealth damn near forcing its will on the rest of us

 

[Rekkapryde]

The US could cut military spending by 1/3rd and spend it on Infrastructure, Education, and other social programs and we'd still be the most powerful nation in the world military wise, and the returns on that investment in itself will push the country forward even more.

This.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

France wanted to sell aircraft carriers to Russia

Not anymore.

That deal is basically nixed.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The US could cut military spending by 1/3rd and spend it on Infrastructure, Education, and other social programs and we'd still be the most powerful nation in the world military wise, and the returns on that investment in itself will push the country forward even more.

I doubt that.

Force projection is a necessary evil when you're the USA and doing it to the extent that we do is something a lot of other people will just have to suck up.

Being powerful is more than domestic and border control.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

thats a tough one breh

i mean yeah, survival of the fittest, but damn. its concentrated wealth damn near forcing its will on the rest of us

But lobbying has always existed.

Even "poor" people lobby. They just need the masses more so than money.

 

[gho3st]

@Napoleon
This question(and following replies) is kinda pointless bruh... I mean why would the government do more to help the poor when it is not under the pressure to do so?

 

[unit321]

As much as they can or as much as other countries?

Compared to other countries (outside of Norway,Sweden...but that's whole other discussion because those countries take preventive measure to prevent people from being poor ) the US has some of the best social service programs for the poor in the world.

Social Services is my field so i feel to a certain extent yes the government does enough to stop those who seek help from starving/ being homeless and keep your head barely above water , which again head barely above water in the US = living like a king in most third world countries, but i think not enough is done to push more people into the upper classes, which of course is done by design IMO.

but yea if i was going to be poor in any country this would be the one to do it in

The flipside to this is that the Democratic party has made people dependent on the government for assistance, and what I mean by that is second and third-generation welfare recipients are mentally ingrained to not work because their parent or parents were welfare recipients. If you want people to become independent, you would make the welfare program designed around getting people to not be dependent on welfare and become independent. The way it is now, people aren't motivated to work to get out of welfare. That's the liberal party stance, that's the Democratic party stance. You don't push people into a higher income class by giving them free money via taxes. What's so American about that? It is about the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.There's nothing about entitlement to free money, which welfare is. Welfare was originally a program to help people out in need on a temporary basis, not a lifelong form of income, which is has become
There are those who think the Republican party is awful because they don't support welfare programs. They think it is the party of rich white folks. When in actuality, it is the political party full of people who want to independent of welfare checks. If you want welfare recipients to get out of poverty, why are you supporting the Democratic party when they are complacent on keeping the poor content with receiving welfare? Of course, there are going to be people who disagree with me and that they believe the Democratic party's stance on welfare is great.

 

[88m3]

Not anymore.

That deal is basically nixed.

It doesn't matter.

 

[newarkhiphop]

The flipside to this is that the Democratic party has made people dependent on the government for assistance, and what I mean by that is second and third-generation welfare recipients are mentally ingrained to not work because their parent or parents were welfare recipients. If you want people to become independent, you would make the welfare program designed around getting people to not be dependent on welfare and become independent. The way it is now, people aren't motivated to work to get out of welfare. That's the liberal party stance, that's the Democratic party stance. You don't push people into a higher income class by giving them free money via taxes. What's so American about that? It is about the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.There's nothing about entitlement to free money, which welfare is. Welfare was originally a program to help people out in need on a temporary basis, not a lifelong form of income, which is has become
There are those who think the Republican party is awful because they don't support welfare programs. They think it is the party of rich white folks. When in actuality, it is the political party full of people who want to independent of welfare checks. If you want welfare recipients to get out of poverty, why are you supporting the Democratic party when they are complacent on keeping the poor content with receiving welfare? Of course, there are going to be people who disagree with me and that they believe the Democratic party's stance on welfare is great.

Both these blanket statments things are simply not true , I know because Ive worked for these programs in two different states over past 4 years, am assuming by welfare your speaking on about food stamps? which for a long time now has been called the TANF program , most states have some form of work or study requirement in order to continue your benefits that "free welfare" program ended in the mid 90s so its not "lifelong" . They are required to meet with a social worker and show progress towards becoming independent , and do other things which i can get into ....

Work Requirements: Almost all states have some form of work requirement that must be completed for recipients to obtain benefits. Over half of the states require 30 hours of work per week, which coincides with the federal requirement. A number of states require a greater quantity of hours, whereas a few others only require 20 to 25 hours. The type and quantity of exemptions from the work requirements differ between states as well. In 2008, 42 states had a diversion program as a means to dissuade people from applying for TANF benefits, such as an employment search or settling for a one-time benefit meant to be utilized for temporary emergencies.

Time Limit: In 2008, 29 states adhered to the federal five-year lifetime limit for recipients to receive benefits. Five states had no time limit, and 17 states had time limits shorter than five years. A number of states provide exemptions or continue to provide benefits to only the children in a family after the five-year limit.

http://www.networklobby.org/tanf-state-differences


your one of those people that believe the most people on government assistance like living in the "ghetto" because its free for them cause they get government money

 

[Red Shield]

The government will only do as much as it needs to do, to keep any uprising from happening. At least until it's ready to get in to american's ass. So it will keep american's fed, with a roof over their head, and a little money in their pocket for now.

Let's keep it 100%... what can american's offer their politician/government official, besides a dumb vote? Those big businesses/corporations/etc can give the hook up to do their will.


Can the poor/average american help your son Tyler get into Harvard? Hell no, but Big Business can help with that.
You wanna bang that actress/high-end model? Big Business can help with that.
You wanna get paid even more when out of the government? You know Big Business can help..

Anyone in the government would be a damn fool to give a shyt about what the poor/average americans think/want.

 

[ill]

France wanted to sell aircraft carriers to Russia

America was fine with it until Ukraine. Don't forget America and Russia were working well together before all this nonsense went down.

 

[ill]

@Napoleon is right. You can't compare Europe's army to ours. They are free to spend on social programs because the US is forced by law (agreements) that they must protect these countries if attacked. It lets these countries spend on things other than defense. The UK, France, and Germany have legit armies that can attack/defend but every other country in NATO is a joke.