As the article rightly points out, the US has spent more money over time on the poor, not less, with middling effect. Whether or not the military budget is bloa

As the article rightly points out, the US has spent more money over time on the poor, not less, with middling effect. Whether or not the military budget is bloated, there's no evidence to suggest that yet more money for the poor would result in better outcomes. Articles like this never address some fundamental questions that would be much more enlightening: * Why does poverty persist in any country? Is there any country where there are no poor? * It states that the percentage of the poor in the US stayed relatively constant over time. But is it the same people (and their descendants) who are staying poor, or are the poor of one generation (or their descendants) able to lift themselves out of poverty into a stable middle-class life? Instead it chooses to frame most economic choices made by the poor as being "exploitative", and at the same breath blames payday loan companies for being predatory and yet posits that the poor need greater access to credit.