Great article on Obama

[babyorr9]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

One self-interest justification for such spending would be that less worldwide poverty should mean less unrest, more stability, and therefore friendlier and less radicalized foreign populations. 0.7% of GNP doesn't seem all that huge to me.

Indeed. Increased prosperity for ALL is the only way towards peace and less world unrest. However, our role should not be to play World Police; nor should it be to bankroll development around the world. Our military abroad and our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan will slowly bankrupt us. We must get out own house in order before we go saving the world. Even though the figure is only .7% of GNP, our debt is 9 trillion and counting. We can't run our own households this way and we should not run our nation this way.

[fishmonger]

Response to T206:

To make an accurate judgement on how well it's "done the trick," you'd have to compare poverty statistics against an alternate universe where the US never had any social spending. Also, we haven't fought our "war on poverty" nearly as hard as other countries that have been more successful in reducing their own poverty. You don't think homelessness and hunger would increase without food stamps and subsidized/public housing?

[fishmonger]

Originally Posted by babyorr9

Indeed. Increased prosperity for ALL is the only way towards peace and less world unrest. However, our role should not be to play World Police; nor should it be to bankroll development around the world. Our military abroad and our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan will slowly bankrupt us. We must get out own house in order before we go saving the world. Even though the figure is only .7% of GNP, our debt is 9 trillion and counting. We can't run our own households this way and we should not run our nation this way.

Good points, there are certainly rational arguments that can be made on both sides of this debate. I don't really feel like vigorously arguing for one side right now.

[t206]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Response to T206:

To make an accurate judgement on how well it's "done the trick," you'd have to compare poverty statistics against an alternate universe where the US never had any social spending. Also, we haven't fought our "war on poverty" nearly as hard as other countries that have been more successful in reducing their own poverty. You don't think homelessness and hunger would increase without food stamps and subsidized/public housing?

Economic policies like the ones in question always have unintended other impacts. Also, I never said that those things wouldnt increase without the funidng...go back and look at the #s I posted. Im simply saying that we obviously could do better with our tax dollars that are being spent since it comes out to almost $7500 per american living in poverty. Send them checks directly like they did with the stimulus checks.

[fishmonger]

I think a lot of economists would agree with you on the last statement.

[t206]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

I think a lot of economists would agree with you on the last statement.

And a lot of economists would agree with the first one too.