Because We The People have "more important" things to focus on, like kitten videos, Kim Kardashian's a$$, and who is going to win the Voice. The fact that the majority don't care (which is exactly what the politicians want) is why the Constitution can be so flagrantly disregarded.

I voted for Ron Paul in the preliminaries, to end all our illegal wars and the Federal Reserve as we know it and not bail out the banks, would have been interesting to see happen. I wonder what would happen to those politicians who benefit from the corruption.

Another mistake most people make is if they voted for someone, they think they have to remain loyal to that person, even if that person is a complete and total disaster in office. For so many Obama supporters, for example, he can do no wrong. And the same was true when Bush was President. And when Clinton was in office, and so it goes. Quite frankly, we should watch those who actually earn our votes with a more critical eye than those who got in because everyone else voted for them. We already know what we don't like about the guy we didn't vote for. We can't turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing of the guy we did vote for.

I think Ron Paul would have been good enough to be our president. I see a few things I don't agree with about him, but the most pressing things I agreed with him. He probably never would have gotten as far as ending financial aid or welfare systems...which I think need changing, not ending. And I think the wealthy need to be taxed even more...they still are left with millions and billions that they don't know what to do with when there are poor people with children who are left to fend for themselves within a pitiful welfare system. Ron Paul thinks charity will take care of people, this is wishful thinking on his part. There is enough to go around and more if the thieves were made to gave back to the poor they essentially stole from.

The notion that charities, churches, communities, and families is not wishful thinking. It's historical accuracy. And before the welfare system, which has been broken since its implementation, encourages reliance on the system. When the private sector handled those issues, there was much more incentive to pull yourself up when you fell on hard times. Not to mention, you're putting it in the hands of those who have the most interest in seeing the individual who needs help become successful.

All those entities you have mentioned have failed millions of people, this is where the government needs to come in and not leave them to fend for themselves, but include them in society in a productive and meaningful way, not to have them remain bottom feeders.

It serves to further empower the powerful for the government to be involved in a socialistic welfare system. As it is, those who propose changes to anything the government has its hands in that the Constitution doesn't specifically allow for are called all kinds of nasty names for simply recognizing the failure that those programs are. The government produces nothing and has nothing other than what it takes from the citizenry through taxes. Certainly taxes are necessary for certain things, however, in a supposedly free society, taxing one's income and certain behaviors seems counterproductive. Just as using that tax money to handle at the Federal level what can be much more efficiently and effectively handled at the local level. How does some bureaucrat in Washington, DC know best how to help someone 3000 miles away in Tacoma, Washington? You also don't cite exactly how families fail their own? By taking them in? By showing tough love? By helping them find jobs? And churches fail in feeding the hungry by running homeless shelters and donating food to the needy? I'll take that kind of failure over government success any day.

I don't think it should be a socialistic welfare system, but a capitalist one. It's good for capitalism to have a strong middle class. Not a weak poor class and a corrupt upper class with a dwindling middle class.

Families don't always support each other especially not in an individualist society like ours as opposed to collectivist societies that depend on family support much more.
Not everyone belongs to a church or whatever organization out there that gives hand outs and they don't intend to hand out as much as they intend to pocket anyway (what a waste of money donating to some of them would be).
The only answer is that the law of the country should create better programs for the poor able to join the working class. This works in other individualist societies, such as Sweden and Denmark.

A quote I found and agree with to explain your attitude and many Americans attitudes nicely:

'In the US, a lot of “us” don’t want to help the poor at all—they’re just lazy insert-epithet-heres. “We” want to help the hardworking but struggling Real American—i.e. somewhere around the 30th percentile.'

How do you propose a capitalist welfare system that is run by the government? A bit of an oxymoron, is it not?

Why can't capitalism coincide with government's support in ending poverty?

Because that's how we end up with fascism. We are nearing that now with the cronyist system that ours has developed into.

At least we agree that currently the big government welfare system we have is only keeping people down and it is designed to do this. What would happen if it weren't designed to keep people down, but instead to help people get up?
Or do you incorrectly believe that poor people inherently don't want to get out of poverty?

the poor are necessary, who else would do the dirty work...

No, quite the contrary. People want to get out of poverty, but the government, with their mismanagement of the welfare system, provides more incentives to stay on the system than to get off the system. The bureaucrats fear for their jobs if people get off the dole. It's the basic principle of self interest. My natural desire is to take care of myself and my family first. The same is true of you and every other person. If keeping other people impoverished is how the bureaucrats keep their jobs to provide for their families, that's what they are going to do. The impoverished, acting in what they have been led to believe is in their self interest, are going to take the handouts instead of working to not need the help. Which is why this is better handled at the local level. I have more incentive to help the guy in my town who is down on his luck than you do, and because his success is beneficial to my community, and ultimately me, I should help him and get others in the community to help him. Local works better. It always has.

It's not dirty work, some people would rather rake leaves than work in a stuffy office all day. There is inherent good to be found in every necessary job and someone out there who wants to do it for a living (but for a living!). However, it should be up to the individual, not up to their economical situation, that would be defending slavery. Perhaps a better minimum wage would attract lot's more (legal) workers to do the so called 'dirty' but truthfully not dirty, just undercompensated jobs.

couldn't have put it any better than that.

once again, couldn't have said it any better. its our own stupidity that will be our downfall. I wish those anonymous hackers would just hack all the TV stations and knock them out for a while, maybe people will get bored and start paying attention to things that actually matter.

no one looks to help the poor...their shoulders are the first step up the ladder of success..

These low paying "dirty" jobs that pay $8/hour may not be ideal, but $8/hour is still better than $0/hour, and those who are willing to take these jobs are currently punished under the current system by being stripped of the "assistance" that others who won't accept that job still receive. That's how the system perpetuates poverty.

Under the current system, you're exactly right, but a simple glance at history before government welfare paints a completely different picture.