Yes.

Only for those that are not able to care for themselves. For able bodied and able minded people, the only system that works is a systems forces people to compete. Any system that gives too many hand outs only hurts those that receive in the long run. It's like feeding the bears at the national parks, once you start providing the food the bears stop looking for their own. Or, like teenagers, if you let them watch tv and play videos games all day, that is exactly what they will do. Their homework won't get done. Again, this only applies to those that are capable. People who have injuries, or illnesses, or physical limitations need all of our help. Not just the governments.

not in a democratic republic like the US

I have a few ways of answering this so bare with me. Yes. But only in the sense that the government is a tool/extension of the people and we as citizens of a country should want to raise the standard of living for all citizens. No. Because the government should not take it upon itself to try to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated. We in the USA live in a capitalist democracy (for the most part) which depends on there being 3 classes: lower class/destitute, working/blue collar/middle class and white collar/upper class. The destitute keep the middle class working and in fear of becoming destitute. The middle class carries the majority of the burden in taxes and work/labor. The upperclass has all the power/wealth and gives the middle class someone to hate and envy. Take away the destitute and then there is only the middle and upper class, which would cause a shift in the power system we have and those in the upper classes do not want this. It would mean an end of capitalism (not to say that is a bad thing!) and we all know our government is influenced more by corporations than voters wishes. So in essence we will never eliminate poverty because those in power do not want it eliminated, the most we could probably ever hope for is to raise the standard of living in a sense that those who are destitute in this country would be considered middle class in another country comparitively.

Yes, with a slight reframing. I think We The People, through our government, should do what we reasonably can to eliminate poverty as best we can. But there are limits to what the government can or should do. Unfortunately, the debate over what those limits should be has been so distorted that an increase of the top marginal tax rate (on income over $250,000) from 36% to 39% has people screaming "Socialism!".

no, and they don't.

Personally, I do NOT believe that the federal government is obligated to "eliminate" poverty. Based on past administrations, if it were possible to have done so, poverty would already have been eliminated. You cannot have life-long multiple generations of the same family on welfare and eliminate it. For far too many recipients it is too deeply ingrained in their society.

No, the central government is not obligated to do so. The problem is not the central government but the Federal Reserve who controls the "fiat" currency used in the USA. They raise and lower interest rates to keep anyone from working hard and earning a living. The people should demand of their congressmen/women to abolish the Fed. and return to a constitutional currency;backed by gold and silver. Remember the Federal Reserve is a private corporation creating currency out of thin air and loaning it to the US central government at interest. This is in violation of the Constitution of the USA! If you care to read about it here is a very good link...http://www.lovethetruth.com/federal_reserve.htm

I wish we could do it without government interference, but the problem is too big for private charity, and is the antithesis of modern business, so who's left?

Yes and no, While it is partly their concern, most of it falls on those who are poor, it is our responsibility to get off our a*ses!

No, but the government is merely obligated to get the hell out of the way of private industries and let them operate, hire employees, and make money. Someone needs to tell the Idiot Obama to get out of the way instead of trying to take over industries and maybe things would be better than our current road to Communism.

No, that is called redistribution of wealth. Doesn't work. Never has, never will. Are you listening BHO?

It isn't even possible to eliminate poverty. You can't make an able bodied person seek and maintain compensated employment. So even if the very young, the aged and the infirm were pulled out of poverty there would still be those who choose to be impoverished.

Well they are about to pass a law which eliminates poverty!! Here's how it works: 1. You make $40K or more, no probs. Make less then $30K you get 5 years in prison. Make less then $20K you get 10 years Make less then $15K you'll never get out alive.

There's no such thing as a moral obligation. Especially among politicians.

Not in America. What makes this country great is that if you are willing to work hard and pay your dues, there is opportunity for everyone.

Social spending (federal alone) is now $4500 per year for every man, woman, and child. With half the population working and the bottom 40 percent of that paying NO taxes, that comes to $10,500+ for every taxpayer going to provide for others. Those who pay never see so much as a thank-you card. Meanwhile the "entitlements" of "the poor" keep on growing. When I was little it was considered enough to provide free food (food stamps and school lunches were new) for the poor so no one would starve. That has grown to where "the poor" are now entitled to free rent, bailout mortgages, health care, higher education, utilities assistance, day care for children, and midnight basketball leagues. The poor are now rich compared to those who pay their bills.