Yes, more government spending will reduce poverty if the spending is aimed at programs to help the poor and lower middle classes get a leg up. They have suffered more than ever since the Bush years, and there needs to be attention aimed at making sure these families do not want for food, and are able to obtain an education. When one wins, we all win.
Basically, if there is more money at the bottom, prices will rise as the bottom purchases more. Eventually, that will become the new norm. Congratulations, because you just made a few savings accounts worth less, as inflation just made them able to buy less.
Also, where are we getting that money from? Sure, the rich could stand to be slightly less richer, according to some, but did they not earn that money themselves? I say kill minimum wage and welfare and let the chaff starve to death or leave, leaving people willing to work.
Sure, it'll knock AD down a bit, but it's worth it.
A government will not focus on reducing poverty since it is not a major problem in front of exposure of a country. A government will focus on marketing the country since tourism is one of the biggest sectors of profit in an economy. Also if a government were to increase its spending which could reduce poverty, rates of poverty in the world would be lower and poor people would have a roof above their heads
You do need government spending to help out people living at or under the poverty line. However, throwing money at the problem is not a full solution. We need systems to help people who are poor the opportunity to raise our of their station. However, some people will never get out of poverty and we need to recognize that.
More government spending is rarely the answer to a societal problem. The issues surrounding poverty are complicated and numerous, and money alone cannot hope to fix each and every one of these problems. With our national debt as bad as it currently is, the last thing we need to do is to spend more money.
Think of it this way...you are the US. You have credit cards already maxed out and you get more. Poverty is your friend Allen, he's down on his luck and needs some help getting back on his feet. Instead of you giving him some resources to get himself out of trouble (like teaching him how to do common tasks for on the job training for free since you know he doesn't have the money to learn how from anyone else), you buy him a nice suit with your credit card. You give him a makeover, nice new shoes, the whole nine yards. He's got all of these nice things, you are stuck with a debt that you can't pay for and he still doesn't have a job because he lacks the skills to get in the door of a job. Instead of spending on things that will help, the US should be giving free job training, social skills, etc to people in poverty. All the money in the world won't help people get out of poverty, if they don't have the skills to get and keep out of it.
More government spending will not reduce poverty. It will dig the country deeper into debt, which will lead to citizens paying higher taxes. Anyone suggesting more spending by the government is a good this is wrong. More spending by citizens is what this country needs to reduce poverty and get the country going again.