When someone ask:
"What do we do about poverty" the next response is usually something about government should...... (fill in the blank).
Government cannot create wealth but it can use force to redistribute wealth from one person to another. If the 'another' is poor, then that person will possess more wealth than before but at the cost of 'one person' possessing less wealth.
I suppose a world government could, in theory, calculate the location and amount of all wealth on Earth then confiscate and divide that wealth by the world population. We could call such legislation the "World Equal Wealth Act". In my liberal days that would have represented the most fair re-distribution of wealth possible. Does anyone disagree? No one would have more than anyone else. I assume politicians would include themselves in that division...anyone disagree? What would such a world-wide society look like? Would we have the same innovation and 'neat things' as today? The libertarian in me says no even though many either disagree or ignore the question. Concern for the poor seems to me to be used as the excuse behind all political world views I am aware of other

j.t.: I think the only other option to the status quo you apparently see -- perfect equalization of resources by world government force -- is too much of a straw man to be worth disputing. There is an enormous difference between everyone having the same amount of everything and everyone having enough to eat, and those of us who would like to see the latter do not at all advocate the former. To your vision of how we're going to solve poverty, I'll concede a similar weakness for sci-fi-pie-in-the-sky dreams. However, while we're awaiting the arrival of that utopia, people are starving. To that end ...

Quoting j.t.searcy: I did a Google search titled: "how much spent on the war on poverty".

... may I suggest you next Google global wealth disparity increasing.

A September 22, 1963 article by Rector Roberts claims 5 trillion dollars have been spent since 1964 and failed to reduce the poverty rate.

Proof of time travel or just a typo? Assuming you got the dollar figure and the "since" year right, I'd point out that as big as $5 trillion sounds, it's really not large at all when divided by forty-five years and several billion people.

Quoting pampl: I liked the diavlog but it kind of bugged me how uncritical Goldberg was. I wish he had pushed back more like he does with Matt Lee.

That's a fair criticism if you start with the assumption that every diavlog has to be a debate. I think it's appropriate for BH.tv to offer other kinds of conversations, too, particularly if the the issue under discussion is one that gets too little attention. That said, the specifics of your critique sounded reasonable to me.

The G-20 summit can do nothing to reduce poverty but it can and will create more if taken seriously! It is nothing more than a gathering of self-important socialist and a waste of time and effort.

Calling the G-20 leaders "socialists" is about as abusive of language as calling them "fascists." I realize that among right-wing demagogues it has become fashionable to use the S word since the McCain-Palin campaign reached fever pitch, but really get a grip and stop making fools of yourselves.

Re: The War on Poverty created by Lyndon Johnson's administration was (to my best knowledge) not intended to cure poverty world wide. It was for America. The money is not the issue so much as results. Obama during his run told us that poverty in America is really, really bad!
That tells me, as the article by Rector Roberts claims, that the War on Poverty is a failure. What is the rational thing to do when discovering one's experiment is a failure? Ans.: Try a different experiment! The U.S.S.R., China under Mao, North Korea, Cuba, America,...etc. all exerimented with liberal government ideas for the entire 20th century. The U.S.S.R. no longer exist, China is moving toward the free market experiment, North Korea and Cuba are continuing the government experiment and America under Obama is moving away from the free market experiment toward more agressive use of the government experiment that really got moving under F.D.R. The results:
1. The U.S.S.R. collapsed due to its agressive use of the government system.
2. China is prospering in many areas due to the free market system. Poverty there is certainly less than under Mao due to this.
3. N. Korea and Cuba are the same

It is a fact that European countries are fascists in their approach. If that statement is seen as abusive then perhaps those governments should move more toward the free market. Fascism is a system in which commerce is privately owned. One can even get rich under it (do your homework). Even so, unlike a free market system, government is the big gorilla in the board room...not the board of directors (kinda like Obama's America is becoming) . Government has the final word on every decision. Sometimes it might agree with the board but if it disagrees, the board loses! "...right-wing demagogues...", "...get a grip and stop making fools of yourselves." Now who is using "abusive language"?
Einstein reportedly said: "One definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Taxes, regulations, mandates, government "oversight", programs (5 year, 10 year...whatever) and all the other tens of thousands of ways governments "manage" economies have been used by despots and non-despots (mere big government advocates) throughout the 20th century.
Those same governments continue year after year, decade after decade telling us that poverty is a major issue. Apparently their "experiments" with socialism, fascism, mixed economies, "managed" competition (Bill Clinton), etc are