QUOTE (yanksavage @ Aug 12 2008, 6:49 pm)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860Eurovol and other lefties can learn a lot from the above post. Enjoy
Going back to this post... I find the argumentation deeply flawed, though indeed I learned something. What I did learn is that the war on poverty was declared lost before it was ever given a chance to succeed. Let's look at simple numbers and do a thought experiment:
At the peak of its giving, apparently 2004, some $368billion went into poverty programs to 37m people. Do the math: 368b / 37m = about $10,000 per person. Now subtract administration costs, where a general rule of thumb for social work is that 1 worker is for 10 clients. Now you've got 3.7m workers, making from $30-60k per year. So, say now this $10000 is now like $8000, which is still ambitious as there are always more costs, and departmental budget waste (i.e. "oh, we have an extra $30,000 - gotta spend it this year on something, or they'll reduce our funding for next year."
So, you're telling me that even if the poor were given this money cash in hand that they'd have a chance?
BUT, what's worse is that this isn't paid out in money, it's paid out in services, as savage's article mentioned:
QUOTE
"... Medicaid, food stamps, supplementary security income, temporary assistance to needy families, child day-care payments, child nutrition payments, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children..."
This is almost like the rat getting the food pellet. They're not even given opportunities to try to use whatever money they have wisely, from what it sounds like. They have to wait around and be given the handout. You can see why it turns into a culture of dependence.
All I'm saying is it's not fair to declare war, not throw enough resources at it, then say "we made a valiant effort but these people simply can't be conquered."
Trillions of dollars were spent on the military in a more or less pointless mission in Iraq. That's a way of saying, the US gov't preferred to spend more money, risk american lives, destabilize an entire region, not to mention undermine the UN and ruin the US reputation abroad, to overthrow one despot (of many worldwide) and to get the contracts to rebuild, and get their hands wet in the mid-east oil business, and didn't care about it's own people below the poverty line, or for those who are refused treatment in hospitals (due to the lack of healthcare reforms that favour the patient). AND, the world is arguably less secure, and religious tensions are probably at an all-time high.
That's the way I see it. America could solve alot of its problems if it wasn't so busy spending money on defence.