(note: for the record, I am the OP on this thread, I just forgot to login before posting, and noticed it too late.)

I never said it was perfect, and poverty has existed in every civilization since humans started forming into groups.

In a way, judging any given time period by its poverty levels isn't going to be especially telling. Sure, if they're especially terrible or amazing then I can see that, but just saying, "X Time Period had poverty." ...doesn't really say much.

Poverty sucks. Sure. It's an age-old problem that people have been trying to solve for centuries. I just think a reduced central government means a more reduced federal tax requirement. Less taxes means good people retain more of their money, which would translate into higher charitable giving. Granted, some of the recovered federal tax money would undoubtedly shift to state and local taxes instead, but there's a far more localized potential for wasteful governmental spending, and more power given to the local communities to do something about that waste. In that scenario, if providing for the basic living needs of everyone in your community is important enough to the people in your area, what's stopping you from enacting a policy to spend money on it?

I think it's a widely accepted truth that what's important to the good people of Iowa is not likely the same as what's important to folks in California. And that's not a bad thing! Basic, fundamental differences (such as Geography, regional imports and exports, etc) shape what a people need and want. So why try to force everyone into one big, complicated mold?

...isn't that just plain unrealistic? Trim it down, keep the "big-picture" centralized mold for things that impact us all equally - National Defense, etc.

Let regional needs stay regional. If you don't like some policy in your region, and can't get enough people to agree with you, at least you can possibly find a way to move to a region with policies more in line with your own.

If you don't like your entire country's policies but still love your country, what choice do you have?

Ok, so Ron Paul wants to slash a bunch of Federal agencies. ....So? Just because we've done things one way for the past 100 years, doesn't necessary make it correct, right? Do you honestly think we wouldn't innovate new ways to provide these same basic services? I mean, after all, the civilized world didn't just spring into being 200 years ago when we founded this country. Many different civilizations have been providing for the basic welfare of their respective people for thousands of years. We elected to federalize/centralize these services, and 200 years later, the people are beginning to widely object to the many different kinds of fallout of that decision. Services like welfare, low income housing, helping the poor - these are services that churches and other charity groups have been providing for a long, LONG time. By and large, they've even managed to do a damn good job of it. Just because Ron Paul wants to make changes that impact "the way it's always been done" doesn't immediately make his ideas wrong. They're just more scary than the other guy's softer, easier to digest ideas. He's not saying people shouldn't, or wouldn't get the help they need, he's just saying it shouldn't be the Federal government doing it. State and local governments? Charitable organizations? Regional service providers? Sure, why not? At least if you don't like the way your area is handling something, you and your local communities have more ability to affect change.