It may sound like a stupid question, but look at the source. Please be honest.

Poverty is a relative term, first of all.

I don't believe poverty can be eradicated by most definitions of poverty.

Poverty can be mitigated and reduced dramatically over what we see now in America.

1. Western European-style social programs can help people to remain secure in nutrition, housing, and healthcare in times of need.  There are plenty of people in more socialized countries who are "cash poor" but not in danger of going hungry, homeless, and sick.
2. If we as a society can reverse our priorities from "profits before people" to "people before profits," we can develop fairer wages, affordable housing markets, and greater job security.  It is no coincedence that our period of greatest "middle class" prosperity was also our period of highest unionization of labor.
3.  A question of values instilled.  Conservatives pound the "work ethic," the willingness to work hard, as essential for keeping people out of poverty.  I agree 100%.  Conservatives, however, refuse to admit greed is bad.  As much as our citizens need to learn hard work, they also need to learn the ethics of sharing and pooling resources.  Right now the dominant philosophy is "every man for himself," "greed is good," and "if you've got it, flaunt it."  This is the headwater of the river of social injustice.  Conservatives circumlocute this truth with bible-thumping and finger-wagging the poor, but they can't change the truth.
4. Cooperation and compassion are every bit as essential to a successful free enterprise society as self-interest and competition.  If we let the corporate bosses determine social priorities, the market entropy we now see will run us into the ground---the rich will become richer and fewer, and the poor will become poorer and more.
5. We must insist "the market' is not divinely correct.
6. We must insist "globalization" is not inevitable nor unstoppable.
7. Though we may never achieve the poverty-free utopia, we must call it a worthy goal.

Furthermore, I wouldn't believe a word Bush says about eliminating poverty in Louisiana or anywhere else.  The economic system he supports is dead opposite of the seven things I just listed (FOX News guys would call every one of them "un-American").  If Bush was serious about an "ownership society," he would be pushing for credit, lending, education, and finance reforms that would really help struggling Americans.  For instance, defaulted student loans ruin the credit of young people, sometimes well into middle age.  Yet, there is no talk of student loan amnesty in exchange for, say, starting a socially benificial business.  Student loan debt problems are answered only with scoldings about "personal responsibility" to the debtor, and nothing else.  Ditto other kinds of bankruptcy.    If you have the will to work, but can avail yourself of no secure, well-paying jobs, and your credit is destroyed by debt, then you can't buy anything to "own."  So, no, poverty will only increase under this administration's priorities.  The "ownership society" is an Orwellian doublespeak for "the man owns your azz society"!

I think the focus needs to shift away from "money" and more toward "things" that are needed for survival.  Housing, transportation, daycare, food and healthcare are the main necessities of life. (Ok, and toilet paper.)

Those "things" should be available to everyone who needs it.  If those things are available to people in need, there is no need for "cash handouts."  Those who want spending money, will have to work for it.  And if they can't make enough money to make ends meet, the government should continue to provide housing, daycare, etc. 

That is a good question. The optimist in me wants to say yes but the realist in me says it could never happen because there are too many greedy people in this world.





Cat

No. It seems to be the one consistent dynamic in the world. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

No. It seems to be the one consistent dynamic in the world. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

"The rich get richer and the poor get children," a lyric familiar to anyone who's read The Great Gatsby.  A theme for the Roaring '20s.  I'll post all the lyrics here:
AIN'T WE GOT FUN
(Gus Kahn, Raymond B. Egan / Richard A. Whiting,   1921)


Bill collectors gather
'Round and rather
Haunt the cottage next door
Men the grocer and butcher sent
Men who call for the rent
But with in a happy chappy
And his bride of only a year
Seem to be so cheerful
Here's an earful
Of the chatter you hear

Just to make their trouble nearly double
Something happen'd last night
To their chimney a gray bird came
Mister Stork is his name
And I'll bet two pins
A pair of twins
Just happen'd in with the bird
Still they're very gay and merry
Just at dawning I heard

Every morning
Every evening
Ain't we got fun
Not much money
Oh but honey
Ain't we got fun
The rent's unpaid dear
We haven't a bus
But smiles were made dear
For people like us
In the winter in the Summer
Don't we have fun
Times are bum and getting bummer
Still we have fun
There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get children
In the meantime
In the between time
Ain't we got fun.

Every morning
Every evening
Don't we have fun
Twins and cares dear come in pairs dear
Don't we have fun
We've only started
As mommer and pop
Are we downhearted
I'll say that we're not
Landlords mad and getting madder
Ain't we got fun
Times are so bad and getting badder
Still we have fun
There's nothing surer
The rich get rich and the poor get laid off
In the meantime
In between time
Ain't we got fun.

The rich get richer and the poor get laid off
In the meantime
In between time
Ain't we got fun.



I'll highlight these lines for all those out there who think that this was a new Idea from Iaccoca and Welch

No.

Of course it is all theoretically possible, but then again nearly everything in the world is.

The biggest problem is human nature.  Till there is a way of changing that, virtually every problem that currently exists will continue to do so.  Furthermore, we will keep adding to the list, because we are never satisfied  :o :-\\

I agree with the rest of you. As long as our President continues to give handouts and tax breaks to the rich and his "other" friends, their won't even be a dent in the poverty crisis, let alone the total eradication. It probably will get worse in Louisiana and other hurricane stricken areas in the US before they get better. :(

While poverty is a relative term, I had to vote "not under this admin", but I do think that dire poverty can be eliminated once we , as a nation, get past the latent racism that so prevades our society.

When middle class Americans come to realize that we are allk in the same boat, MAYBE things will change.