And they still do a better job of it than any government.
So we need smarter people to rule them?
If people are dumb, how are they ever going to produce enough to take care of themselves plus everyone else? What happens when you have a society of stupid people and a policy of transferring whatever anyone produces to everyone who doesn't produce?

I think the scope of these issues is too narrow. Personally, I think our politicians are overly concerned with detailing "molehills" rather than generally addressing the "mountains". Official poverty in our first world economy is one such mountain.

These issues could also be solved, by individuals, with a public policy of zero percent official poverty.

Consider that, if no one in the US is official in poverty, what reasons would our governments have to implement more "government" to solve some "molehills".

Just out of curiosity, how would you define poverty? I'd rather be in "official poverty" in the US than, say, sub Saharan Africa.

How would zero precent official poverty be achieved? Taking the money from people who have earned it, and giving it to the people who haven't?

Poverty in the US is already defined (Source: 2008 Poverty Guidelines).

It always depends on implementation. However, I think simpler implementation, could be less expensive than what we already spend on social programs that do not achieve zero percent official poverty.

Thanks for the link. I realise I should have googled it myself.

I'd question the desire to achieve zero percent poverty. Why should people have to hand over their money to other people? It would be much simpler to let people keep their own money and take away the barriers to earning and working.

Just over 12% of the population is in "official poverty." None are starving, none lack emergency medical services, and most live lives that only 30 years ago would have been unimaginably rich even for most middle-class Americans and ARE unimaginably rich for many Europeans today.

How is this a "mountain" of a problem?

How do you do that with public policy that does not correct for inefficiencies in the market for labor? An unemployment rate can also be considered the inefficiency rate in that market. How does your view account for a "natural" unemployment rate?

Simplifying government could lower our tax burden and meet your "criteria" of letting people keep more of their own money, while still achieving a social objective of zero percent official poverty in our first world economy.

If it is not a "mountain" of a problem, why is anyone advocating "molehill" solutions to lesser problems?

However, to answer your question, I believe that it is an ethical and moral issue, to solve for official poverty in any first world economy. In other words, it is more ethical and more moral to solve for that socio-economic, human condition, than to not solve for it.

You're going to have to be more specific. The metaphor makes no practical sense. Also, you'll have to address the point that "poor" in the US is "rich" in most parts of the world, and would have meant "middle class" in your country's not so distant past.

(1) What?

(2) Lessen the reach of the government (education, welfare, etc.), simplify the tax system and lower taxes. Yeah, that's fine, and would most likely improve peoples' lives. But I see no reason to actively "help" people out of what you term "poverty", only to not stop them working for a better life.

Probably for the same reason you can't define why poverty is a "mountain" of a problem and not a "molehill": the definitions are subjective and have no basis in objectivity.
When does poverty stop being a "mountain" of a problem? What percentage of the population would need to be in "official poverty" for you to relegate the problem to "molehill" status? Zero?

Our US federal Constitution only enumerates the power to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. Thus my limitation in my argument to US poverty guidelines.

(1) If we consider a basis for comparison, full employment of resources; then anything less than that can be considered a market inefficiency. Thus, an unemployment rate can be considered the inefficiency rate of the market for labor.

Under current economic policies, a "natural" unemployment rate can be considered a "natural" inefficiency rate. Since a lack of income can lead to poverty in any mixed-market economy, how does your view account for that "natural" poverty inducing inefficiency?

(2) Why would anyone consider poverty a good thing in any first world economy? It is analogous to saying that the parent of revolution and crime is a good thing in any first world economy.

My view is that eliminating official poverty can lead to overall improvement in our standard of living, simply by ensuring better employment of resources.

I agree with Aristotle when he states that, "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime." Consider, as a basis for comparison, our current US standard of living if we had the social services of a third world country.

Poverty can stop being a scourge of the human condition when we become a truer form of first world economy and eliminate official poverty in the US.

So does that mean 0% living in "official" poverty?

I subscribe to the theory of supply and demand.

I subscribe to Forbes, but that doesn't answer any questions.