When will the War on Poverty end?
927940
When the Democrats stop using the poor for their own political gains.
76569
About a fourth. not many people who are at the poverty level can afford to go.
94552
There will always be poverty. Some because of circumstances, some by choice.
302852
Because of African dictators who take western hand-outs and use it for the own personal benefit rather than feed their own people. Poverty in Africa will never end due to this.\n\nAnd "The Champion" needs to catch a wake up. The US is at the forefront of giving aid to poverty stricken countries. It's not Bush's fault if the receivers don't use the cash wisely. The West should probably stop giving aid since it's only an incentive to "freedom fighters" to take over the poor country in order to get the aid.
1067407
Of course it could.  However I don't think that will ever happen.  War is too convenient.  War is a remarkable catalyst for redistribution of funds.  A select  few in the grand scheme benefit.  War does not help the starving children.  It does however help the munition mfg. and makers of war  implements. War helps lobbyist  and the organizations they lobby for.  It also helps  political enities  who are not above a little ill gotten gold.
1138854
I say the war on poverty, because this failure also leads to the failure on drugs (i.e. poverty increases the chance of getting involved with drugs). Poverty also leads to crime, and believe it or not terrorist activities. If the world had a level playing field (i.e. fewer inequities between nations), there would be much less terrorism, and much, much less support for it. Poverty leads to many of the other problems facing the world and until it is better addressed, we will be dealing with all it's side effects.
1011381
Poverty cannot be eradicated, any more than illness could be.  It can, however, be lessened to such a significant degree that it ceases to be a major issue.  Think about the comparison: diseases like smallpox and influenza, once killing millions, are now minor problems in much of the world, thanks, in part, to medical innovators.  \nYou're right that the Chinese are better off today than they were in the past, but they (and we) are only being allowed to experience a watered down, sanitized-for- bureaucrats'-protection version of capitalism.  The stranglehold that government desperately wants to keep on business and on your money restricts, yet fails to eliminate, the positive effects of capitalistic behaviour on the prosperity of those touched by it.  \nEven the capitalism-lite we've been stuck with has resulted in enormous progress.  Today, most people below our poverty line have a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and often even a car to drive.  Most "lower class" Westerners have a quality of life probably comparable to aristocracy in the Middle Ages, an extremely un-capitalistic time.   In medieval Europe, everything was considered the property of the government and only doled out to those who kissed royal butt.  This is not what we need to return to!\nUltimately, the only way for poverty to be reduced on a global scale would be for all governments to cease meddling in the economy of "their" nation.  Yet bureaucrats shamelessly use the poor for valuable political leverage and have no intention of willingly getting their noses out of business... well, draw your  conclusions.
723533
no they won't  b/c if they did then i don't think there would be poor people in this world b/c the jobs are endless when it comes to picking fruits and vegetable and working in hot ass sewing factories.  many americans wouldn't be caught dead working in places like that, they would rather get on welfare and live off of others.
442651
When they stop killing each other and elect non corrupt govenments would be a start. Education is the key. All these charitys chucking money at them wont change a thing.
98358
There have been many other signs of the day of judgment so we could very well be nearing the end of times.\n\nThe issue that is of concern is the priorities of our government.  Somehow all the important social programs that I want my taxes to go to have been cut in order to increase spending on an illegal and immoral war that has already cost the lives of 30,000 Iraqi civilians.\n\nFolks, did you hear that? 30,000 civilians! That's not including armed insurgents.  And that's the number that our president is willing to admit to.  God only knows how much more have actually died on the hands of this butcher of Baghdad Bush (like father like son).  How many people died on September 11th?  3,000.  So to go and fight terrorism and avenge the death of these 3,000 people, we go and kill 10 times as many?  Who's the real terrorist here??\n\nStatistically, if you added up all the countries' defense budgets, the U.S. defense would comprise 80% of that and all the other countries combined are only 20%.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have a military, but our military budget comprising 80% of the entire world's while people in our own backyards are dying of starvation or lack of medical insurance??\n\nThe other thing that boils my blood is the fact that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney come from energy backgrounds (Arbusto and Halliburton).  How can it be that as soon as we take over Iraq which was under embargo for 12 years the demand for oil goes up, yet the energy companies score record profits ????\n\nIs this what you want your taxes to pay for?  For an empirical armed nation that is hijacked by corrupt right-wing neo-con energy blood-suckers?  I say we should be able to have a say regarding what our taxes are being spent on.  I personally will not pay taxes this year because I don't want my hard-earned money going to support this sham.\n\nThe ball is in your court.  What are you gonna do??
974440
no..don't count on it\nwith greed, self-indulgence, the cost of fighting terrorism, CEOs that cost thousands of jobs and millions of dollars,a  who-gives-a-serious-crap attitude on social security,and failure to recycle precious land and resources has taken its toll on us and payup time has arrived. We have serious business in our own  yard to attend to before we can resume saving everyone else who needs us. take a number please  :-)
677481
FREE healthcare for everybody--never mind affordable.  Spending money on this war when there are starving, homeless and sick people in OUR country is a miscarriage of justice.
1096034
I think that's true. I mean, look at the history of all the current wealthy countries today (United States, China, India, Argentina, etc). They were once consider a poverish nation and with leadership and trade laws, these countries flourish. Countries that are dependent on foreign aid will never get rid of poverty because the leaders of these countries are selfish and greedy. When countries donate money to poverish nations, it is up to the government of these poverish nations to distribute. Too bad the leaders of these poverish countries can take full advantage of this. They take in the foreign aid and usually never distribute to the people in need. Sometimes they steal foreign supplies and sell it in the market.
1074805
YES i did know and it sucks for the people trying to survive off minimum wage. congress and give themselves raises due to inflation yet the everyday hard working citizen cannot. gas prices tripled since the last raise. Even groceries have gotten more expensive. And dont even forget about the cost of housing since the real estate boom. And whoever said thank god, whats your reason? its pathetic that the richest nation in the world suffers such poverty.
693439
If the country was being run like it should be, we shouldn't have anyone here in the US living in poverty.  \n\nSadly even the minimum wage is a "poverty wage".  You can work 40 hours a week and work all 52 weeks a year, and you would still be considered living in "poverty".\n\nSo to answer your question:  Yes, the government is wasting our tax dollars and making impractical decisions.\n\nIf they were running the country properly, we wouldn't have to have a need for welfare, or be hated by more people than ever from other countries (war issue).
1109501
No, I don't think so. US is contributing very little money to help clear poverty around the world. Only UK and Australia did that largely. I'm not sure with this answer.
543838
Yeah, there's a permanent solution, it's called 'an atomic bomb'. Anything short of that requires some good mutual co-operation and understanding. Poverty sucks, but it's an unfortunate outcome of avoidable circumstances. People like to have sex, and have kids. Makes em feel like they're fulfilling their biological imperative, to 'go forth, and multiply'. Nothing wrong with sex, but there's definitely something wrong with 6.5 billion people, 30% of which basically live so far below the poverty line that the average person in a more developed country just doesn't 'get it'. 2 different worlds, for all intents and purposes. Understanding these differences will make it more constructive to try and build bridges between them, and help people to understand which of their actions aren't really helping matters. You could start with the Vatican, on that one....that 'go forth and multiply' stuff is sooo -3000th century...