"Why I Stayed"

[Jacob]

Or how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations?  Like I do now.

As per grumbler's link in the OP, it doesn't seem to be doing the trick

[derspiess]

Or how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations?  Like I do now.

As per grumbler's link in the OP, it doesn't seem to be doing the trick

Doing what I can.

[CountDeMoney]

Doing what I can.

And Operation Rescue sincerely appreciates it.

[Ed Anger]

Spicy, give to the Human Fund.

[crazy canuck]

What do you want me to give, then?

A good start would be to give it some attention and treating it as a problem worth addressing to begin with. After that, giving support and attention to people who are working to solve the problems would be useful that.

If you'd then give support to moving helping the poor away from the bottom of the funding priority list, that would be solid too.

Or how about I just donate to the poor through charitable donations?  Like I do now.

Because that does not address the underlying problem that Berkut put quite well.  Your government spends a great deal of money on what might losely be terms social programs but with very little bang for the buck.  Even someone like you should be concerned about that.

[Jacob]

Don't we have a childhood obesity problem?

Providing access to inexpensive soda and junk food does not counter the problems of underfunded schools and social services.

[derspiess]

Doing what I can.

And Operation Rescue sincerely appreciates it.

The pro-life groups I've supported have all been geared toward aiding women who keep their babies.  I'm not too big on protests & whatnot.

[derspiess]

Your government spends a great deal of money on what might losely be terms social programs but with very little bang for the buck.  Even someone like you should be concerned about that.

So you're saying we should or shouldn't de-fund those programs? 

[crazy canuck]

Your government spends a great deal of money on what might losely be terms social programs but with very little bang for the buck.  Even someone like you should be concerned about that.

So you're saying we should or shouldn't de-fund those programs? 

I am saying that the problem the US has isnt necessarily the amount its government spends but what it spends it money on.  An incredibly inefficient medical system tops that list.  But instead of fixing those inept policy decisions your politicians think that defunding the people that are the most vulnerable is the best way to go.  And your solution to that is private charities?

[garbon]

Don't we have a childhood obesity problem?

Providing access to inexpensive soda and junk food does not counter the problems of underfunded schools and social services.

[The Minsky Moment]

But it clearly is NOT completely missing. This is incredible amounts of political will to do something about poverty in America - we spend billions and billions on it.

Do we?
Because the answer depends on how one defines "it."

We have programs to feed children.  We have those programs because wealthy and powerful agricultural interests support them.  Those programs aren't designed to eliminate poverty, they are designed in the first instance to raise farm incomes and in the second instance to forestall one of the negative potential consequences of poverty - namely, starvation.  The same basic thing can be said of programs to provide shelter of some kind.  Or Medicaid.

We spend collectively as nation a lot of money of "education" but that is not quite the same thing as actually educating.  And the motives for doing the former involve lots of reasons that really have little to do with poverty.