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

[JahFocus CS]

Governments don't exist for the poor.

 

[Yapdatfool]

Governments don't exist for the poor.

They never have. And never will.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

....

 

[tmonster]

I mean, the average US citizen is living a golden life compared to most people around the world.

How much more or less should the government be doing to help the truly poor?

Will you ever be satisfied with anything? Are you already satisfied?

1. the government does not help the poor, the people through their largess-overseen by the government that the people enable-help the poor
2. They will do as much or as little that we demand that they do
3. we will demand as much or as little as we protect the development of our enlightenment and compassion

if you want stats just google "quality of life index ranking"
they are done yearly by several bodies
the us is in the top 20

 

[tmonster]

I mean, the average US citizen is living a golden life compared to most people around the world.

How much more or less should the government be doing to help the truly poor?

Will you ever be satisfied with anything? Are you already satisfied?

The government is doing just enough to keep people from revolting. There's a reason all Black people do is march and protest when we're shot down like dogs in the street.

There's also a reason they use racism to divide the classes...

LMAO
I see that the "if only black people don't run they won't get shot" crew is in here cleaning up their rep

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

1. the government does not help the poor, the people through their largess-overseen by the government that the people enable-help the poor
2. They will do as much or as little that we demand that they do
3. we will demand as much or as little as we protect the development of our enlightenment and compassion

if you want stats just google "quality of life index ranking"
they are done yearly by several bodies
the us is in the top 20

1 has nothing to do with what you quoted....ehhh, fukk it I don't feel like getting into this. Maybe later

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1 has nothing to do with what you quoted....ehhh, fukk it I don't feel like getting into this. Maybe later

Yeah...I thought this would be taken seriously...and its not

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1. the government does not help the poor, the people through their largess-overseen by the government that the people enable-help the poor
2. They will do as much or as little that we demand that they do
3. we will demand as much or as little as we protect the development of our enlightenment and compassion

if you want stats just google "quality of life index ranking"
they are done yearly by several bodies
the us is in the top 20

These 3 points are all 1 point...so...quality of life index...what about it?

Do you feel the US is doing enough? And how does that relate to the poor?

 

[mbewane]

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

They can sit on their hands talking about how high and mighty they are while thanking the USA for taking the pressure off of them for having to do the same things.

Saying the US and Europe have the same aims is kind of an overstatement. Europe (the EU) is 28 sovereign countries who can't even agree between themselves what foreign policy they want to have, but somehow they ALL agree with the US? Only European countries that follow the US no matter what are the UK (which is basically a US state when it comes to international matters) and some Eastern european countries, mostly because of money/military aid the US provides them. Other countries will side with the US on some issues, and not on others.

Anyway, as I said earlier, we know that the US would rather have its own population starve than stop handing out trillions to subsidize its military industry and create wars to use the weapons. Whether European countries pay more or not, you will. We all know that. If you don't want to pay, step out, it's not rocket science breh.

@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.

First : "Europe's army" does not exist.

Second : you guys really need to stop acting like the US is some benevolent big brother looking out for Europe, come on. Every war the US wages is for its interests, which is no different than any other country. The US CHOOSES to spend trillions on its army for internal political reasons and to boost its economy. Since when does the US care about international law

 

[ill]

Saying the US and Europe have the same aims is kind of an overstatement. Europe (the EU) is 28 sovereign countries who can't even agree between themselves what foreign policy they want to have, but somehow they ALL agree with the US? Only European countries that follow the US no matter what are the UK (which is basically a US state when it comes to international matters) and some Eastern european countries, mostly because of money/military aid the US provides them. Other countries will side with the US on some issues, and not on others.

Anyway, as I said earlier, we know that the US would rather have its own population starve than stop handing out trillions to subsidize its military industry and create wars to use the weapons. Whether European countries pay more or not, you will. We all know that. If you don't want to pay, step out, it's not rocket science breh.



First : "Europe's army" does not exist.

Second : you guys really need to stop acting like the US is some benevolent big brother looking out for Europe, come on. Every war the US wages is for its interests, which is no different than any other country. The US CHOOSES to spend trillions on its army for internal political reasons and to boost its economy. Since when does the US care about international law

Since WW2 when the Americans saved European asses from hitler. U.S. Interests just happen to closely align with Western European interests. We have formal legal agreements that say we must protect certain European countries if they are attacked. It's really that simple. They don't have to finance or raise their own armies because the U.S. MUST protect them if shyt goes down. If you don't think that gives away a lot of leeway then I dunno what to tell you.

 

[Calmye]

They're doing more than enough if you look at the budget. Wether the money is being put in the right areas to help the poor break into the middle class is the question

 

[mbewane]

Since WW2 when the Americans saved European asses from hitler. U.S. Interests just happen to closely align with Western European interests. We have formal legal agreements that say we must protect certain European countries if they are attacked. It's really that simple. They don't have to finance or raise their own armies because the U.S. MUST protect them if shyt goes down. If you don't think that gives away a lot of leeway then I dunno what to tell you.

Well you start your post saying "Americans saved European asses" when history shows that Nazis were already too stretched out at that point and that the Soviets were the ones doing the heavy lifting out East. But that doesn't fit American and Western European story-telling. Plus, everyone conveniently forgets resistance groups who were fukking things up from the inside. Once Hitler decided to attack the USSR, he lost the war. Plus let's not forget that the US had ties with the Nazi regime, so miss me with the whole "saving" rhetoric. US chose to intervene because the eventuality of Stalin taking over Eastern Europe with a weak post-war Western Europe was too dangerous, especially given the popularity of communist parties in France, Belgium, Italy, etc. US needed to get there quickly (exfiltrating Nazis scientists would come in handy too).

Second, is it Europe that forced those laws upon the US? Again, you're a sovereign country. Funny how all of a sudden you guys are respectful of international laws all of a sudden. If you don't see that "protecting" Europe (from who?) is a good way to justify spending trillions on the military lobby (instead of health, education, social services), then

 

[unit321]

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 ....



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

It is what it is, but can you explain the massive numbers of second and third generation welfare recipients in low-income neighborhoods.
Every state has its own requirements to reeceive state welfare benefits so I don't know what state you are working in.

 

[ill]

Well you start your post saying "Americans saved European asses" when history shows that Nazis were already too stretched out at that point and that the Soviets were the ones doing the heavy lifting out East. But that doesn't fit American and Western European story-telling. Plus, everyone conveniently forgets resistance groups who were fukking things up from the inside. Once Hitler decided to attack the USSR, he lost the war. Plus let's not forget that the US had ties with the Nazi regime, so miss me with the whole "saving" rhetoric. US chose to intervene because the eventuality of Stalin taking over Eastern Europe with a weak post-war Western Europe was too dangerous, especially given the popularity of communist parties in France, Belgium, Italy, etc. US needed to get there quickly (exfiltrating Nazis scientists would come in handy too).

Second, is it Europe that forced those laws upon the US? Again, you're a sovereign country. Funny how all of a sudden you guys are respectful of international laws all of a sudden. If you don't see that "protecting" Europe (from who?) is a good way to justify spending trillions on the military lobby (instead of health, education, social services), then

Breh, your country, France, had already lost to Hitler. America literally saved and freed your country from the enemy.

No one forced any laws. It was mutually beneficial and its how America became a superpower. Lets not forget that they were a middle of the pack military/economic power before the war. I don't understand why you're complaining about how America spends its money. Thats for American citizens to bytch and moan about (and i don't disagree with you but thats for us to decide). As a European you should be ecstatic that Americans are spending money on YOUR defense leaving you to spend on social programs. Like I said earlier, there are 3 maybe 4 countries capable of self-defense and they are UK, France, Germany, and maybe Italy. You live in one of those 4 so American protection might not be as valuable to you, but to every other nation in Europe that doesn't have a top 5 army, I'm pretty sure they are thrilled with American defense.

 

[mbewane]

Breh, your country, France, had already lost to Hitler. America literally saved and freed your country from the enemy.

No one forced any laws. It was mutually beneficial and its how America became a superpower. Lets not forget that they were a middle of the pack military/economic power before the war. I don't understand why you're complaining about how America spends its money. Thats for American citizens to bytch and moan about (and i don't disagree with you but thats for us to decide). As a European you should be ecstatic that Americans are spending money on YOUR defense leaving you to spend on social programs. Like I said earlier, there are 3 maybe 4 countries capable of self-defense and they are UK, France, Germany, and maybe Italy. You live in one of those 4 so American protection might not be as valuable to you, but to every other nation in Europe that doesn't have a top 5 army, I'm pretty sure they are thrilled with American defense.

France (I'm not French btw), had resistance movements causing damage to the Nazis. Italy was mostly liberated by their resistants. We give the US its props for quickening things up, but that's it. We know damn well they did it for strictly tactical reasons, not because of some "help" lol. Had that been the case they would not have been neutral at the beginning of the war. They would have hoped in before the Nazis started attacking US submarines or before Pearl Harbor.

I'm not the one complainig, this whole discussion started by saying that Europeans were freeriding America, so it sounds like it's Americans complaining. If you're ok spending for us, great. If you're not, great, get out. But whatever decision you guys take don't sugarcoat on some "We're protecting Europe and doing for the good of Europeans", we're not that naive breh. I guess you heard of the containment strategy, so is that Americans love Europeans so much, or really need bases to contain the USSR/Russia?