ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Activism

Should The U.S. Go To Other Countries and Help The Hungry?

Updated on March 23, 2012

Answer: "Yes" and "No"...

Truthfully, there is no way to answer a question like this, with a simple yes or no reply. Though I'm sure it was never intended to be that simple. So, in true hubpages fashion, I'm going to make a hub about the topic. I feel particularly pulled to answer this question, as there are a small group of social networkers (including myself) who talk about such subjects on a facebook group I started called Sustainable Social Solutions.

Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless - these are difficult things to do, and that's without considering those who are outside of our own country.


When it comes to the yes side, here is how I see it. Yes, we should help those who are resource challenged, including those who are overseas in foreign lands. We should help by:

  • Starting charity organizations that can fund raise to send food and other resources to foreign countries/cities that need the aid the most (or randomly).
  • Starting various fund raisers on our own, that others can donate to, and then send that money to a charity org that helps feed the hungry in a location of our choice.
  • Writing about nations that have the most resource deprived people, and how others can help them get the resources they need.
  • Making movies and documentaries that show just what sort of aide is needed most (i.e. more food).
  • Volunteering for overseas missions to help feed the hungry.


On the no side, I feel that it is important not to consider having our government be the "helping hands" that go over the feed the hungry in foreign nations. Aside from the fact that our government already has thousands of things on it's to-do list that it's been neglecting to do for decades, do we really need more new taxes and missions for our soldiers? I think not.

If we are to help, I feel that it should never be through any sort of government interventionism. We already spend enough time "saving the world", and that's not only destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings and soldiers, but it's brought us more losses of our freedom then has ever been known.

Consider this...

Now, although I would hardly haste to suggest that any one hungry person is more deserving then another, I am inclined to suggest that it is difficult to help others when you still haven't helped yourself. What I mean by this, is that we still have virtual third worlds in our own country, that hardly anyone realizes. Many of them are desecrated First Nation/Native American reservation lands, upon which live millions of human beings who live without power, food, clean water, heat or government aide. There are also plenty of cities filled with human beings who need our help in getting their basic resource needs met.

Aside from how crazy it is that everyone wants to help those in other countries when we still have people here to help, it just doesn't do us any good to put the charity horse before the tax cart. Every person on american soil appreciates into increased tax dollars that our "safety nets" can't cover. Part of the reason our country is continually in debt, is because we have more people here than we can monetarily afford to support. If the money were out of the way, we could do more, but it's not. So the reality of the matter is, until each person on our own turf is taken care of, and has at least their basic resources taken care of, then there it's redundant to try and help anyone overseas. It's a great thought, but both our government and our personal resources should be used to find sustainable solutions to social problems, like feeding the hungry and housing the homeless.

Until that is done, every dollar you send overseas to help someone, ends up being two extra dollars off your pay check. Yes, you may have temporarily helped someone who really needed, and no, I'm not saying that is wrong or not noble. Though wouldn't it be so much more miraculous, if we could take care of those right here at home, and offer them the chance to create solutions that can also benefit foreign nations in the same ways. What's that old saying...

"Feed them a fish.. they eat for a day... teach them to fish...and they'll feast forever"


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • twaggoner profile image

      twaggoner 6 years ago

      Interesting take on hunger. My own views are that when it comes to other countries the US tends to become involved as long as there are resources to be taken, otherwise we dont get involved. With continuous intervening in these countries politics and policies, we owe it to them to try to help as much as possible. As far as hunger at home, if the US as a country would stop forcing itself on the world, we could take our budgetary expenses currently being spent on foreign wars, and interventions, and along with that rework our tax code so that everyone is paying a more equal share of the load, and stop allowing market manipulation by not allowing crops to be grown, or having corporations making it harder to grow crops, then much of our hunger and other social programs could easily be taken care of. You can teach a man to fish, but if he cant afford the pole and bait, it does him no good. Thats my little rant on hunger. Thanks for the interesting read!