Taking from someone who earns more than another to even things out is robbery. If I earn more than you, I am entitled to it. If you earn more than me, then you are entitled to it. That is freedom. Everyone is free to find their own way in life instead of a beaurocracy who decides who gets what. No thanks. I'll make my own way and if you can't take care of your family, then it's your fault, not mine. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have any. Educate the masses on how to use birth control.

Yeah it IS wonderful.. but i am fortunate enough to not be in need of such backup.. PLUS i have spent most of my life in pakistan and it is where i feel the most comfortable.

Yes sir.

It looks like no one is for AA around here. Alright, guess there is no point in debating against it.

I am for AA. I think it is a necessary evil as we still allow our ghettos to remain intact and the schools in those areas to fall apart. They certainly don't have the same advantages as the rest of us and I feel AA does a little to help this imbalance. I would like to see AA disappear but only after we solve those problems.

How does AA help local neighborhoods and schools?

It doesn't help local neighborhoods and schools, no. Until we solve the problem of our ghettos and the schools within those ghettos there is still an unequal playing field in America. AA is a necessary evil until there is equality in those areas in my opinion.

Because AA as surely helps the wealthy minority as it helps the poor minority from the ghetto, why do we not replace AA with a system that gives preference to the poor people from the ghetto, regardless of race?

You're not taking into account the fact that many "poor people" are poor people because of choices, and life-style decisions. You cannot change that fact by throwing money at it. In fact, you could give every "poor person" in America $100,000 right now - and within 5 years at least 99% of them would still be poor.

The answer is education, good choices and self-discipline.

I think the answer lies in a mix of the two.

By spending more money i do not mean giving handouts in the form of cash. However by supplying basic necessities like food, shelter, education and helth to all citizens, it is easier to demand self discipline. When you are homeless and hungry you don't give a damn anyways. But if you are fed and clothed ( not luxuriously mind you.. just enough to not feel like shit) suddenly the demand to work honestly doesn't seem so unfair. I mena you ARE after all getting your basics covered.

Supplying the basic necessities requires more money than currently being spent by the US gov. Spend more money there, give the people their basic needs and THEN tell them to shape up and get to work. I mean it works in scandinavia. Why shouldn't it work in the US?

Paragraph 1 - I agree.
Paragraph 2 - I disagree.

I live here. I've worked within this "handout" system for years - not as a receiver, but as an administrator of certain sectors of it.

Under the current system, there is NO reason for ANY American to be starving, and there is NO reason for ANY American to be without shelter. I can assure you that MANY people who receive "food stamps" are eating better than I can afford to.

Mentally unstable people - who comprise the vast majority of America's homeless - are homeless by choice. It's not a good choice, nor is it in their best interested, but they cannot be "housed" against their will. So, they choose to meander around and wander the streets.

Even so, EVERY city of ANY size has soup kitchens and homeless shelters. And these are in addition to any government assistance poor people receive.