War on Poverty: If a main thrust of American foreign, domestic, and military policy tend to be humanitarian in nature; why then are communities like Gary, Indiana; East St. Louis, Illinois; Opa Locka, Florida; Indian Reservations, and poor rural communities, allowed to persist in their current squal

American politics are dominated by interest groups.  Generally the poor are not well organized and do not have powerful advocacy groups that represent their interests.  Aside from their economic circumstances, the urban and rural poor have little in common culturally or geographically, so they do not tend to see their interests as aligned. Nonetheless, billions of dollars have been spent at the local, state, and federal level on anti-poverty initiatives, through HUD, the education department and programs like Medicaid and Social Security.  Poverty has been shown to be a pervasive problem in spite of those outlays, and Americans are skeptical about additional spending. Finally, in a country that is still a white majority, poverty disproportionately affects minority groups, so there is a quality of "otherness" to those who are impoverished.  Among a population mainly confined to suburbs, the poor are heavily concentrated in inner city ghettos and remote rural environments.  In short, the poor are simply invisible to most people on a day to day basis. For the above three reasons, combating poverty does not have a prominent place on the national agenda.

I would argue that while the majority of military and foreign policy actions may seem humanitarian in nature, that actually usually serve to further policy objectives and interests that happen to align with a humanitarian action. For example when we send aid to a country like Japan after a natural disaster it helps solidify the alliance and partnership we have with that country. Another example would be a military intervention, we don't send troops into every country with a dictator killing their own people, i.e. the difference between military action in Libya and Iraq and the lack of action in Rwanda and Sudan. Now to answer the question directly, we (as a nation) supposedly get a better return on investment by spending money on foreign policy objectives than we do using that same money on the domestic problems listed in the question. Also, America doesn't believe in having a large social safety net. While it may not seem like it right now, Congress and the rest of government have to be somewhat cautious on how they spend our money. If you overspend on to many social programs, you can get backlash movements like the Tea Party that call from much smaller government and less spending on social programs. It basically comes down to how can we use the money to best achieve our policy goals, both foreign and domestic, and how much social spending will the American public accept. Improving the quality of life on an Indian Reservations doesn't achieve policy objectives for either of the major parties, so it doesn't get the money.

In a nutshell, I think it can be explained by three things: 1) policies designed to benefit a certain constituency (aka reservations); 2) policies that are outdated and no longer function as designed; 2a) short-sightedness; 3) capitalism I'll use the economically-languishing Rust Belt you mentioned, cities like Gary and East St. Louis, as examples.  In 1934, Congress passed the National Housing Act, which changed the terms of home loans to make them more accessible to people.  This also effectively subsidized new construction over the renovation of existing construction.  The end result: middle-class whites were able to move into new suburban homes, but poor minorities still could not afford to leave the inner city.  Banks no longer loaned on new construction in those areas, or renovation loans, because economically the didn't have to.  As people left the inner cities for the suburbs, so did businesses. And as they left the inner cities, so did property taxes. This meant that city governments no longer spend nearly as much money on inner-city improvements as those areas needed- the political capital went to the suburbs as well as the monetary capital. Now, cynic that I am, I still cannot believe that FDR and Congress set out to deliberately harm poor inner-city residents (2a). But all four points I give above are involved in why that legislation is still on the books. It still benefits builders, developers, realtors, and banks (1).  With the current housing market glut projected to last for another 5-10 years, there is definitely no need to subsidize housing anymore (if there ever was)(2), and given that the 1934 Act is still on the books, private investors still choose to invest elsewhere other than inner-city neighborhoods (3).

Thanks for the other answers. I would point out that most of them focus on the spending on social services, and ignore the fact that social services are always a fix for a problem caused elsewhere. Social spending is not going to eradicate poverty: only a political and economic system that aims at reducing inequalities does. Have a read of  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better - Countries with greatest levels of inequality do worse when it comes to looking after the well-being of their citizens. The research shows that inequality causes shorter, unhealthier and unhappier lives; it increases the rate of teenage pregnancy, violence, obesity, imprisonment and addiction; it destroys relationships between individuals born in the same society but into different classes; and its function as a driver of consumption depletes the planet's resources. Paul Kennedy has argued that great empires fall as a result of military overstretch - Triggering a downward spiral of slowing economic growth, internal division and strife and a weakening capacity to bear the cost of a bloated military. If you live in the US, you may want to have a look at  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32512  and let me know whether you think the current crisis in the US is a symptoms of the decline of the US 'Empire'? Also have a look at http://dochasnetwork.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/global-equality-the-domestic-case/ Oh, and PS: You may want to read up on US foreign policy is far from "humanitarian in nature"...

Taking the question strictly at face value, since it is proposed as a specific if-then construct, I'd say this: There is no specific remedy for communities that are in squalor. Economically and psychologically scarred neighborhoods and communities can no more be "fixed" than you can take a person who has no money and no hope and "fix" them. Will giving a homeless person money "fix" them? No. It can be a bridge - a way to get to the next day - but without meaning and purpose, it's just a handout - it won't 'fix' their predicament. The same applies to communities. We tried here in the US to 'fix' poverty, by throwing massive amounts of money at communities (The "War on Poverty"). It failed, quite catastrophically, because only money that's earned has real value to the recipient - and the process of earning it (usually) gives meaning and purpose to a person. Digressing from the strict construct, you could substitute practically any country's name in the question, and countless of that country's communities, and it would be equally applicable. Perhap not Monaco. or Qatar. But as I said, I digress. It's always great sport to pile-on when it comes to 'murica. Pretend Russia, England, France, Mexico, Indonesia, don't exist - makes for a more attractive argument.