Poverty is not just an economic issue, it is also an issue of political economics?
369863
The reason poverty is a matter of political economics varies, but mostly it depends on congressional funding and the fact that the projects that get funded may produce jobs in the given area.  So if a congressperson doesn't get support for their bill, they will not get their project, and no project in the area they represent means no jobs, and that will economically affect the region. \n\nSo like now, when you have a political party controlling both houses and the presidency they can pass bills in support of their region and unless the minority party has an extremely necessary bill, odds are it will meet with difficulty.\n\nDelegating money to a region should be a lot simpler than govt makes it, but anytime you have human beings attempting to exert control, selfishness and greed will sneak in there and it is possible for an area to be so neglected in funding and projects, meaning their congressperson is not getting support in congress, the area can really suffer and fall into poverty.
606919
Political freedom is ultimately inseparable from economic freedom. Where you have one, the other will follow. Deprive people of one, and the other will wither.
992023
Because free market capitalism (big business) has lifted more people out of poverty and into prosperity and health and wealth than any other economic system. The poor in the US have more than most people do in the rest of the world. And in a free-market society, more poor people get out of poverty because of the opportunities.\n\nBusiness = prosperity, wealth, opportunity = good for human life
914749
WHEN IT STARTS IT WAS FOR THE SOCIETY OF SOME POOR PEOPLE.  BUT NOW A DAYS IT IS BECAUSE OF POLITICS.
50716
Free markets economy is an addendum to the laws of nature. Water flows from high to low till equilized. There is no good or bad about it - it just is. The good is - lower parts can get water, the bad part is that water may cause attrition or floods along the way, or simply be wasted in the lower areas. But movement of resources from resource rich to rosurce poor countries/areas follows the same principle. \n\nSurvival of the fittest is another way of looking at it. In the resourse hungry countries, people will do anything to survive, including accepting low paid jobs. In the resource rich countries, people are at a higher level of Maslow's triangle, are more complacent and demanding of higher standards of living. This creates a cycle of abundance and deprivation in various areas of the world - thus a boom is always followed by a boom and vice versa.\n\nThe overall socio-economic goals of a society include equality for all. Free markets are one way of redistributing wealth and adhering to the supply and demand principles. Culture of consumerism necessitates maximizing affordability - so production has to be at the lowest price. If the demand of the same job is high elsewhere, then thats where the jobs will go.\n\nMost issues associated with concept of free economy are detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable population. Patent issues cause hundreds of thousand deaths/suicides in India and Africa. It amplifies the divide between the rich and the poor. WHO, GATT, JAFAA and NAFTAA are weapons used to coerce governments of small countries. Instead of waging war and occupying countries, the US uses trade economics to control and occupy countries. So Free Trade has really become an intrument of war rather than the instrument of social justice that it was supposed to be.\n\nI guess the free economy is a concept - and just like any other concept it has its good and bad. Often the media portrays only one side of the issue - depending on where you live you get to hear one side of the story.
560957
Nope. The rich and poor countries are intertwined whether they like it or not. The rich need the poor to exploit and the poor need the rich in order to be exploited. There would not be one without the other.
757797
One is a country and the other is an economy?
696898
what does this have to do with politics?
394121
I don't think it is just poor people. I believe people let religion choose their political affiliation because religion goes to the deep areas of what people believe about right and wrong. And in many cases people fear they won't be able to go to heaven if they don't agree with their church. Unfortunately even though a particular political group may be overall bad for people economically they are more likely to agree with that group if they feel the group meets their moral needs and beliefs.
1162749
Money isn't why some people are poor and have no jobs (which is still bogus, because they COULD go out and get a job).  Greed and human gluttony is the real problem.  Blaming money for starving people is like blaming your pencil for misspelling a word.
895874
I think dems and reps alike all realize it's time for min wage to adjust to the current inflation-it's not really a political issue-it's more common economics-
303495
None....they are both for income redistribution!
449619
Those who live in conditions of poverty lack a wide range of economic and other resources and may be described as "poor" or "impoverished". Some see the term as subjective and comparative, others see it as moral and evaluative, while others consider that it is scientifically established.\n\n__________________________________\n\nMany different factors have been cited to explain why poverty occurs. No single explanation has gained universal acceptance.\n\nGo to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty to fin links to statistics and more information!
345610
What you are describing is the politics of greed, supply side economics is one of the main factors. Giving tax cuts to the very rich while cutting programs to the poor is a symptom of this greed. \n\n I look at it this way, if you have a pile of three boxes setting on the floor and you want to move them if you lift the top box that is the only one that moves. But on the other hand if you lift the bottom box all three move. \n\nOk, the top box represents the rich and very rich, the middle box represents the middle class and the bottom box represents the poor. Our government, lead by president Bush has lifted the top box and left the other two behind and that is what is wrong with the "me" politics of the repuglican party. It is time for a change starting in November. We need more democrats in the house and senate to provide a check and balance to the politics of greed. \n\n No person or family in the United States legally should be without the necessity's of life. Food, shelter and health care.
530406
Because poverty and food are not related. Poverty is a term in regards to money, and food is with hunger. The real question is, "why do we have so much hunger in the world when we can produce food?" The answer to that is that not everyone has access to the food that is produced. The USA is one of the biggest producers of food products (corn, wheat, vegetables, etc) but that is all perishable. It takes time to transport them to other countries. So for example, if we wanted to send a bunch of vegetables to the people starving in Somalia, most of the food would go bad by the time it got to them. Also, there are mean people out there who take the food for themselves and do not give it to those most needy.
57965
Money Is A Major Issue.
977790
It should be above bare subsistence, and then indexed to inflation. Then politicians would not have to seek increases every few years, and it would not matter which party was in power; people in covered jobs would have a living wage.