The United States government takes in more tax dollars than any of other nation on earth, spends more money than every other nation on earth and yet still claims to need more. Whether they are reading people’s text messages, lying, stealing, bombing kids, wasting other people’s money, taking bribes or implementing policies that have never worked, the federal government and the politicians who make it up are essentially just as bad as the criminals they attempt to prosecute. Not to say that these terrible things have putrid smelling motives, in fact almost all of them begin with a congressman or woman with a strong opinion, hopefully righteous intent and always a little or a lot of economic ignorance.

When a politician declares war on an issue, they do so because they want to negate it and make it vanish. In practice however, it also means that the taxpayer foots the bill for a massive spending campaign that accomplishes nothing close to the original goal and manages only to increase the problem it was intended to alleviate. Now, not to say these declarations don’t help, they do. They help the government justify the infringement of civil liberties.

While the debt clock has been ticking away to the next debt ceiling crisis, the United States has been involved in several declarations of war in order to apparently improve American society at the cost of, well, money not even earned by generations not even born. To drive home this point regarding the government use of a “war” to increase its control, take for instance the wars on drugs, poverty and terror.

The War on Drugs has been in some capacity for the last century or so. For the purposes of brevity, this will only take into account the war on marijuana and its users, as well as it being the main so called culprit for drug related offenses.

According to the drugpolicy.org, the United States state and federal governments spend around 50 billion dollars each year in order to regulate, enforce, try and imprison drug offenders. In the long run, since 1970 when Richard Nixon declared his War on Drugs, 1.5 trillion dollars have been spent, while the drug addiction rate has remained at 1.2%, according to the Office of National Drug Policy Control. So what does this show? Well. The federal government failed entirely to put in dent in the drug rate, and succeeded only in putting a dent in American’s wallets. Simply put they have very little to actually show for it.

In 2013, there were 693,423 people imprisoned for marijuana related charges, and over 88% of them were only found in possession of it. With other criminal offenses tallied, one out of every 110 adults is incarcerated, giving the U.S. a highest incarceration rate in the world, the majority of which never hurt a single person other than themselves.

Why is the government involved in protecting people from themselves, when it can’t actually change anything even with billions and billions of tax dollars? All in all, the War on Drugs has cost billions of dollars, imprisoned millions who spend decades in prison for nonviolence and all while doing nothing to drug use but increasing the burden of the tax payer.

When Lyndon B. Johnson declared his War on Poverty, he sought to relieve anyone in poverty from ever having to suffer again. After all, one would think that after pumping 21.5 trillion dollars into social programs conditions would certainly start to change. However, if one would think that, he or she would be wrong. The poverty rate at the beginning of the war was 14.5%, fifty years later, the poverty rate in 2010 was 14.5%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

This astounding sum, with such lackluster performance, is distributed by over 80 federal programs to over 100 million Americans who receive assistance through its coffers, but has this colossal cost accomplished Johnson’s goal of self-sufficiency and to transform the poor into, as he said, “tax payers,” not “tax eaters?” The answer to that is simply no.

The first reason being that the 900 plus billion dollars given out in welfare each year is not actually considered income by the Census Bureau and therefore people who are not or should not deemed poor, are classified as such and because of that they annually fall below the poverty line. This therefore increases the amounts of money paid in and makes it increasingly difficult to differentiate between who really need assistance and who are taking it for granted.

The second is that the poor in America overall live significantly better than the poor in other countries, and yet they also choose to spend their money on non-essential items and pleasures, while also claiming to be in poverty. For example, according to the Heritage Foundation, 31 percent of the poor have two or more cars, 40 percent have flat screen plasma televisions, over 50 percent have video game systems and 67 percent have cable or satellite television. One should not dare ask for public assistance if he or she has an Xbox One and satellite TV.

The War on Poverty also made it easier to sustain multiple children outside of a stable marriage, which in terms of fighting childhood poverty, two present parents really is the lifesaver. Prior to the war, only 7 percent of children were born out of wedlock, now that number is 40 percent. The current welfare system reduces entitlements to married individuals and therefore it is more profitable to simply stay single and have more kids to collect more checks. All in all, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation says it best, “The welfare state has undermined self-sufficiency by discouraging work and penalizing marriage.”

The last to be mentioned, although there certainly are many more, is the venerable and ever so glorified War on Terror. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, President George W. Bush declared a global war on terror. With that mantra, the Taliban were kicked out of Afghanistan, and rightfully so as they harbored those who attacked the U.S. and therefore it was in agreement with the None Aggression Principle which stipulates the use of force is only justified in defense following attack. However, later in 2003, the United States then invaded Iraq and ousted President Saddam Hussein for his alleged chemical weapons.

Although evidence for these weapons is at best inconclusive, there was never any imminent threat against the United States, and the elongated stay of troops in the country lead to thousands of dead and injured American soldiers, as well as Iraqi civilians, and all for a country that would not even fight for its own freedom. This part of the War on Terror begs the question, why are U.S. men and women fighting and dying for another country’s liberty, when the ideas of democracy, women’s rights and common law are entirely alien there? Not to mention the fact that although he was a terrible man, Saddam Hussein actually did fight terrorist groups within his borders and was a counter to Iranian influence in the region.

Even now in the Middle East, the U.S. continues to make the situation worse with its imprint in the area. While President Obama claims to be fighting ISIS, he’s also bombing Syria and Libya. By ousting Gaddafi in Libya, terrorists automatically found a new safe haven. By bombing Assad, the horrible man that he is, Obama is removing yet another ally in the fight against radical Islam. The United States just cannot come to terms with the fact that secular dictators, as evil as they seem, are the only kind of force or government known in the Middle East, and the only kind that fights the violent theocracies that ISIS is attempting to establish. Removing a secular dictator only allows worse people to come to power. Simply put, yes there are bad people in the world, but if they do not strike, do not preempt them and risk increasing support for their cause.

Along with the United States just invading other countries for aspersions and overzealous politicians, Americans have been assaulted at home by the War on Terror just as well. With the signing of the ironically named Patriot ACT, the federal government gave itself the right to read, tap, record or download any piece of data or personal information an individual may have. Although supposedly run through a FISA court, as Edward Snowden pointed out, it really means that the National Security Agency records and stores all of your digital communications and phone calls. No names and no warrants, but hey, at least some part of the government actually listens.

Lastly, although it began decades ago, the idea of foreign military aid has increased significantly. In 2012, 37 billion dollars was sent to other nation’s militaries and governments, according to the Finance Degree Center. Why does the U.S. fund other country’s armies? Can we not just leave them the hell alone and take care of our own people or maybe even rebuild some bridges?

18.1 trillion dollars in debt, and the United States still must borrow more money from China in order to send it to Pakistan. That makes absolutely no sense. All things considered, since the War on Terror, the American taxpayer has picked up the check for dropping bombs on half the Middle East, drone striking children, paying to have themselves spied on and lastly to buy AK-47s for corrupt governments.

Indeed, since the inception of the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and the War on Terror, the drug rate has not changed, the poverty rate has not changed, amount of violence in the Middle East has gone up, and at the same time everyday Americans are dug deeper and deeper into debt from their all-knowing and benevolent leaders. Finding that for some reason their dollars are worth less and less each year, while also constantly being told they just need bite the bullet, hunker down and pay a little bit more tax, and then, only then will drugs, poverty and terror finally be defeated, just like President Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush said.