What can we do as an individual to try and stop or at least minimize World Hunger and Poverty?
At the individual level Misha's got it pegged. help those nearest you and hope it spreads. Misha should know.
I agree with you but how do we promote it and most important, get the World Leaders involved?
I wrote a hub on solving poverty. Doing away with poverty is a process, for which, would also do away with world hunger problems as well.
You find a charity that actually does donate the money they receive I have heard Oprah's charity donates 100 percent received and not only give towards food efforts, but education also, last heard a child in Africa can be supported for school at about 100 dollars a year. Education, clean water, food supplies. And don't forget your community there are churches and community food banks that would love to accept volunteers, good healthy food and household supplies to distribute to your community. I often carry food in my car to distribute to homeless peanut butter crackers Canned foods and water this time of year too.
As individuals, we can offer our neighbors a part-time job, when we can afford it, and they could really use the work. We can also vote to eliminate the minimum wage, if there is such a thing in our own country, because sometimes we can afford to pay a little for someone to help us with work around our house or on our farm, but if we are not rich ourselves, we can't pay a lot.
We can also vote to repeal social security taxes, if there are such things in our country, because social security taxes are a regressive tax that penalizes the poor and lets people above a certain income off the hook. (I'm basing this on the American tax system, but I imagine similar things happen elsewhere.)
We can, as individuals, campaign to repeal any laws that require people to purchase insurance (car insurance, medical insurance, any kind), because such laws are particularly hard on people who don't make much money. Without a car, in many places, it is hard to get a job. The most expensive part of car ownership, for the poor, is the insurance.
We need to realize that when they are in need, people are happy to work for low wages, and we should not deprive them of the opportunity to do so by making it impossible for them to be hired because the wages that others can afford to pay them are considered too low.
Most of all we should realize that the best way to help a hungry child is to respect that child's parents and their ability to provide for their own.
Wow! You really know how to help the poor. Your spirit of generosity and selflessness is amazing. And it appears to be based on the bedrock of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, one of the great ethical thinkers of the 20th century. Or perhaps the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer, the great 19th century philosopher.
Ralph, are you against offering our neighbors a part time job? Are you in favor of a regressive tax against the poor? Do you really think that somebody who can barely afford a car should be saddled with mandatory insurance?
No, of course I'm not opposed to offering a neighbor a part-time job. However, I'm also in favor of Unemployment Compensation which is necessary in industrial urban societies to assist people who are involuntarily unemployed and to provide a counter-cyclical boost to the economy in a recession.
If you are asking if I'm in favor of Social Security tax the answer is yes. The effect of the tax when retirement benefits are taken into account is not regressive. However, the best way to make the tax fairer to all would be to eliminate or greatly increase the $100,000/year income maximum subject to the tax. What is fair about a tax of 12% for someone who is self-employed making $100k or less compared to a tax of 1.2 percent for someone making $1 million/year. That's what's regressive about the SS tax. And the requirement of having a minimum level of insurance on one's car is reasonable because it provides protection for all parties involved in accidents. As is the requirement for health care insurance this benefits the community, which is of little or no concern to you in your preoccupation with your own individual freedom.
BTW, how do you feel about the $4-5 billion per year we send to Israel? Certainly the largest amount to any country and possibly larger than all the rest of our foreign assistance combined.
Disincentivize corruption and incentivize education.
All incentives are a form of corruption. People don't need an incentive to do what is right for them and their family and their neighbors.
That's a real stretch of the definition of "corruption." Corruption means doing something illegal for self-benefit. How can legal incentives (like tax breaks on giving to charities, for example) be considered corrupt?
Besides, people will steal from starving people for what's good for them and their families. Dictators do it all the time.
Yeah, people are evil by nature. Except for progressives of course
Look, just because something has been made into "law" does not legitimize it. If a law says "take from the poor and give to the rich" that does not make it right. If a law says "take from the rich and give to the poor", that also is not right. All forms of redistribution are wrong, for the same reason that stealing is wrong.
And for the record, I don't think stealing is wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's immoral. And it's immoral, because it destroys lives.
The definition of "corruption" is clear. You may choose to redefine it to suit your particular ethos, which apparently is a pretty rare one (most people would not classify welfare or progressive tax schemes as illegitimate or immoral), but I don't see any reason to agree to it.
Livelonger, you certainly don't have to agree, but I think my ethics are not as rare as you would like to believe. The political division in the US at present, which is polarizing the nation, is between people who think as you do and those who think as I do on this issue.
That is just one of very many divisions in this country.
There are many divisions, but this is the one that people will act on, because it affects their very survival!
Many, many, many people will disagree with you. Some of those think our very survival depends on stopping gay marriage, and others think our very survival depends on ejecting (what they believe is) a Kenyan-born president.
And there are the counterarguments. Here's one: there are millions of people working at minimum-wage jobs whose survival would very literally be in the balance because they couldn't afford health care.
And may end up in prison for failing to pay for mandatory insurance!
If they can't afford the insurance, then no, they wouldn't.
How will it be determined who can "afford" to pay? Based on hourly wage, monthly income, or amount of savings? Based on the value of your personal belongings? Will the cost of living where you are be taken into consideration or the number of jobs you work to bring in that income? Will your life expectancy go into the equation? Because people who live on savings determine how much they can afford to spend each month based on how long they plan to live. Will that be factored in for retired people?
It's related to your income, not your wealth. If you can't afford it, you get a subsidy, but everyone has to be insured (with very few exceptions). More details here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 … -insurance
As for going to jail: not true. See the May 11 update here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/impris … alth-care/
Related to your income but not your wealth would imply that a millionaire with no income would be exempt from paying either for the insurance or the penalty. Is that true?
Every millionaire I know earns an income, at least through interest on their accounts.
I can't imagine the government would use anything other than your income as reported to the IRS. If you literally are sitting on a pile of money and not earning anything, then what would be reported to the tax authorities would be zero income, so you would get a subsidy.
Have you tried to live off interest lately? It might as well be zero income, no matter how much money you have.
But forget millionaires, are you seriously saying that retirees who have enough savings to live on for thirty years in the form of a cash pay out from their retirement plan will be exempt from the health insurance payments if they don't put the money in the bank?
Are you sure that there won't be some kind of differentiation between earned and unearned income somewhere in there? Some kind of credit for people with a low earned income and no unearned income, that people who are retired won't be eligible for? That's how a lot of subsidies work.
Aya, for some reason you're under the impression that fabulously wealthy people never enjoy government subsidies. This would be absolutely nothing new.
Retirees: I assume you mean people 65 and older? They are already covered by Medicare, a plan you're already obligated to pay into. You have Medicare from 65 until you're dead.
No, I am not sure how income will be calculated. But to suggest people will not buy insurance because they simply can not afford it seems baseless given how generous subsidies are for it.
Fabulously wealthy people may or may not enjoy subsidies. I wouldn't know, not being fabulously wealthy myself.
What I do know is that people with a relatively low income that is labeled as "unearned" are treated as if they were fabulously wealthy and are not granted the same tax credits as people of the same income whose income is "earned."
That I don't know, but I don't see how it would make a difference. Whether income is "earned" or "unearned" it is income; if you are earning neither than you don't have an income and it stands to reason you would get a subsidy. Again, I don't know too many millionaires that are not earning an income, whether "earned" or "unearned."
Retirees, as the word suggests, means people living on retirement income. They are not necessarily over 65. I know many people living in my area who took early retirement as an alternative to being laid off and are now primarily living on retirement income. Some took a lump sum payout. Some of these people were in their forties and fifties when they did so. Many of these people started their families late, so they are still supporting elementary school age children. They are not eligible for the child care credit, even though their income is very low, because it is not "earned". I bet these same people will not be eligible for subsidies on the mandatory health insurance requirement.
Are you suggesting these people do not have health care coverage for themselves and their children, and that they don't want it?
I'm suggesting that some of them can't afford it,unless they find extra jobs. I know of some families that do supplement their income by occasionally picking up a part-time or seasonal job. I don't know what their finances are like, but I do know they fluctuate based on whether they were able to find an extra job. They can survive on their retirement, but it does not allow frills. If they have health care insurance, it may not cover everything that is mandated. (And they may allow it to lapse when other emergency expenses come up. If they do that, it's their business and no one else's. Or was, until now.)
These people understood that they were going to live on a smaller income, so they moved to a less expensive part of the country. They moved from areas where social services were high, to a rural spot where even the roads are not paved, and they have their own septic tank and well.
Many of these people bought land and spent years building their houses with their own hands. They lived in trailers while the houses were coming up. They spent their money on things that would allow them to maintain a low cost of living. They would have been part of the massive "unemployed", if not for these thrifty moves on their part. But nationally mandated health insurance tends to make the cost of living go up without reference to geographical constraints-- the only way to avoid it is to go abroad.
It seems you are describing people are genuinely poor and are certainly earning far less than the 4x the poverty level where subsidies kick in.
I'm not sure I'm understanding a scenario where someone is wealthy enough to not qualify for a subsidy, but still poor enough to barely make ends meet. Are their incomes (whether earned or unearned) over $44,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family?
Their incomes are well below that, I'm pretty sure. But you have to understand that during those periods when they have no part-time job, they have no earned income, even though they do have income. You do understand what "earned" income is for tax purposes, right? It doesn't include interest, dividends, annuities or money from rental property.
What difference does it make? If their income is below 88,000, whether from earned or unearned sources, then they qualify for a health insurance subsidy, which, unless they are Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses, they are probably want to have for their children, at least. (And even they will get a religious exemption, apparently)
What about the Amish? We have quite a few of them here. Does a religion have to be listed to be exempt? Sounds like a violation of the establishment clause.
The reason I doubt that you are right about the subsidies is that almost any other handout through the tax code requires earned income.
You see, most handouts are intended for people without savings. If they have savings, then they are expected to use them all up, and then ask for a handout.
People who own land, have no debt and are living on interest are not considered poor by most yardsticks, no matter how low their income.
Where (one source is sufficient) does it say that you must have some sort of earned income in order to qualify for health insurance subsidies under the new reformed rules? I've found absolutely nothing.
Livelonger, I don't know. I'd just be very surprised.
People who have savings usually aren't labeled as "poor" and are not given any breaks. If I find out what the current scheme is to deal with people who own property, have savings but have no income, I will let you know.
The bottom line is the cost of living goes up every time such a law is passed. People have all sort of taxes they have to pay: property taxes, car insurance (mandatory), and now this. Can someone "afford" to pay for something is not a question that has a black and white answer. It's all a question of priorities. For a family with limited means, (and most families have limited means), the question may come down to this: We have a couple thousand dollars left at the end of the year. What do we use it for? To pay the property taxes? If we don't, we'll lose the house. To pay for health insurance? If we don't, there will be a similar tax penalty, which if not paid, will send us to prison. Car insurance? If we don't, we can't drive. Something will have to give.
For people living on "unearned income", it may mean having to find jobs to re-earn what they already earned once, because money they could have spent on food was spent for them on a piece of paper issued by an insurance company.
Taxes and insurance are two different things.
The government requiring you to take out insurance if you drive a car is not a tax. They might fine you if you don't comply, but my guess is the revenue from this is meager. If you drive a car, cause an accident and don't have liability insurance, then an innocent party is responsible for bearing the costs of your negligence. This is why states force you to buy liability insurance if you're driving a car (but not collision or comprehensive).
The government also has an interest in seeing that its citizens don't starve to death, get poisoned or exposed to harmful things, and stay healthy and productive. When people don't have insurance coverage, they delay medical care until it reaches the emergency level at which costs are exorbitant and the costs, in the case of the poor, are borne by everyone else.
The frantic fear about costs going up don't seem to mesh up with the fact that in the US we spend a far higher percentage of our income on healthcare than other countries with better outcomes, complete coverage, and mandatory insurance coverage. There seems to be this bizarre disconnect from reality among those resisting health care reform: we don't need mandatory insurance because we'll never get sick, or insurance will always be affordable, or my insurance will never deny any of my claims.
The health reform law doesn't provide for prison sentences for failure to have insurance. If I'm wrong on this feel free to let me know.
My recollection is that there is a fine. I'll look it up.
Are there penalties if you don't buy insurance?
If you ignore this mandate and don’t get health insurance, you’ll have to pay a tax penalty to the federal government, beginning in 2014. This fine starts fairly small, but by the time it is fully phased in, in 2016, it is substantial.
An insurance-less person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085; or 2.5 percent of household income.
There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.
Why the requirement?
Why is Congress doing this? It’s a pretty obvious way to expand coverage, for one thing. Also, it will help bring in a flood of new customers for health insurance firms, including healthy young people who might not need much healthcare.
For insurance firms, those new customers could balance out the losses they might incur if they can no longer deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. (Yes, that’s another change the bill makes.)
And remember, many people will not be buying this coverage purely on their own. Uncle Sam will be helping them. The bookend to the individual mandate is federal subsidies for insurance purchases, which reach deep into the middle class. We’ll talk about those next.
Join the healthcare reform discussion on Facebook
[From the Chrisitian Science Monitor shortly before the bill was passed.]
So, regardless of wealth, all people will be subject to the same penalties and the penalties will be called a tax? But those who have more income will pay a higher fine? What about someone who cannot afford $695.00 per family member? Won't that person have to be imprisoned for failing to pay this "tax" under the ordinary provisions that enforce the tax code?
Remember, Ralph, fear of imprisonment is also the "incentive" people have for "voluntarily" paying income tax. But income tax is dependent on having an income. You can avoid incurring the tax by forgoing an income. What can you do to avoid paying either the penalty or the insurance fee? Go to prison?
All governing bodies provide -free of charge- the three basic human needs for life: healthy food, clean water, adequate housing. This would reduce the stress of people for money and give them a stable lifestyle to begin with, since these items come from the planet itself.
To rid the planet of poverty, rebuild the trade industry and barter system instead of metal/coin or paper currency systems.
Do you really think that is practical or likely?
practical, yes. likely, more than yes.
although many of the suggestions are sweet, they are just more icing on a very dry, stale cake.
Throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it.
Putting people to work only thins out the money, coming back to the same basic problem, affordability of food, housing, clothing. Those people now have to fight with others for more time to earn more, which is a fancy form of cock fighting/slave war.
And ole man selling scented oils once ask me, "How do you help the poor?". i went on telling him some of the charitable things I try to do. He told,"ah,no-the best way to help the poor is not to become one of them. Learn to save ya money". I looked at that ole man puzzled, but I wish I would have took his advice.LOL
As an individual it is quite difficult to reduce hunger or poverty. Staying in your country u cant properly realize what is the actual condition of worl's hunger and poverty, specially in the third world. The best you can do is to visit a thirld world country and after going ur own country try to create/search a group who are interested to work for reducing poverty and hunger and help them with your level best.
WORLD hunger and poverty? INDIVIDUALLY? Not a thing. It might make one feel better as an individual but as far as the world goes, doesn't scratch the surface.
This is the problem why wouldn'd it scratch the surface?
Look at how far we came and acomplished!
All acts are individual. But if all people did them the effect would be huge.
I bet there is a foodbank near you, and hungry children.
I have to agree with Misha. As long as we are helping our starving neighbor, world will be taken care of! Leaders, they just spend money on themselves, they do not feed anybody, they just pretend they do. It's their job to pretend, they are good at it! So, first you have to feed yourself. Then, help your neighbor to do the same. That's it, very simple.
Also, there are plenty of charities where you can sponsor a child's education in countries where there is extreme poverty, help them learn some vocational skill that could benefit them in the long run...
Myownworld, do you really believe that if you clean one spot in a living room, your apartment will be clean? You cannot help people in a poor country by giving your money to some charity. You just fill somebody's pockets, that's all. Only on a government level we can help another country. It requires a lot of money and careful politics. If you just send some money or things to a poor country, people who can get hands on that, will steal it and sell it for profit, giving some pittance to some poor people. That's what was happening in my old country, when some charities sent money and stuff. Do you think that people who really needed, got it? Oh, NO! And if you teach somebody in a poor country, he will get his education, and when he is grown up, - he will abandon his country and go to US or Canada for a better life. And you, shmucks, just rot in your poverty back in you old country.
"You cannot help people in a poor country by giving your money to some charity. You just fill somebody's pockets, that's all. Only on a government level we can help "
Sab Oh, I understand,
goverment is "helping", when they need to bomb some poor country, send troops to die there needlessly, I know, but may be in future things will be different and goverment will "learn" to really help other countries who need help.
I understand what you mean, but I never said that this was the 'ultimate' solution to world poverty, just following the above conversation and merely suggesting it as one of the things we can do in our capacity as individuals.
And though I realize in some cases it's hard for our money to actually reach some of these people, yet there ARE many charities one can trust too. I myself have been working for one such in south asia, where I know the money i give does actually better someone's life... I personally follow up on some of these children's lives... hard work, I know, but if one gets personally involved, then there is hope....
ONLY then is there hope. That's why laying back helplessly and expecting 'government' to solve anything (no matter how much they steal from you to do it) is doomed to failure.
yes, I know... and there in no shortage of ways to reach out, if we try looking for them. In fact, if only one had endless hands, and resources and time...... yet, even little 'drops' make a difference I feel...
smiling here... a line suddenly came to my mind that I know you'll like...
"We are all of us lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" - Oscar Wilde
Actually, I think these charities are better in many ways as they are generally run by international volunteers who are proactive within the country - you can sponsor a child, but the money generated is used for the village as a whole, to provide educational facilities, wells for clean water etc, and yes, you can keep in contact with the child. it is all done through the charity, I think.
Personally I would trust many of these charities more than the governments of some of those countries - it is often the governments that are corrupt and so do not make good use of the financial aid. Governments handing money over to other governments often just doesn't work.
exactly, one just needs to find a charity one can trust.... and there are plenty one can.
Hey Polly, about the Charity organizations who "claim" to help others, but waste more time and money on expenses than actually putting more money to work harder and smarter than actually is happening. That would be one of the bigger problems with them.
Just a thought.
No organization wastes more time and money than government.
There are plenty of organisations and volunteers who only want to better the lives of others -I have heard of plenty of success stories where life has been improved, and people have bene given opportunities that they didn't have before. Even if things are not perfect, and only some have been helped, then that is surely better than nothing, it is steps in the right direction. And usually improvements happen through small, gradual changes.
And, how many times does the same organization end up going back to the same place to help the same people? Too many times, so who are they really helping?
It's a sad day when people really think that charities or the such are actually helping(the services provided are not a solution but a temporary aid and not real help).
I don't get what you mean - how is clean water and schooling only a temporary solution? Clean water saves lives, and schooling gives children knowledge and at least a chance out of poverty..
What would your solution be?
That's wasn't the point I was making and I can see why you are saying what you are. Those which you speak of, such as clean water is a good thing, but schools are not always permanent, however a step in the right direction.
The topic here is about World Hunger as well and there is no just providing food as a method of helping that would be permanent, because it is only a temporary fix.
And, NOT ALL charities provide resources for clean water and schools, which also falls under the point I am making.
It's a case of finding a reputable charity, I guess, I know of a few.
You're quite right, simply sending food will never be a solution, the only way would be to provide facilties and funding so that people in areas suffering from poverty can become self sufficient and feed themselves. Though I know that is not as simple as it sounds...
Rubbish. My money produces one less hungry child. That may not seem a lot to you. But it is a lot to the child. Why not join me?
How do you know that?
Did you personally ask that child?
May be they just gave him a toy, put a clean shirt on him, made a snap to send to you as a "proof", then stripped him from his clothes and toys and sent him to the gutter again. I saw that happening too, sorry.
At least goverment has power, power to change for better or for worse.
I agree that most of the times unfortunately for worse. That's what they did in my old country, and still doing it.
We support a child in a 3rd world country.
So far they have done amazing things with the money. The whole village is better off, with a brand new well full of clean water among other things the people have done for themselves with the money they get.
We get regular updates.
I don't have any materials to give to people who are impoverished as I am poor myself...
But I study on the topics of oppression and poverty, then talk to people about what I find out. Mostly I am aware of local poverty issues but many of the same components (oppression, scarcity of resources, man-made scarcity of resources) are involved in both local poverty and global poverty issues...so I try to talk with people in small groups or one-on-one and mostly, I ASK them to tell me WHY they believe certain things about poverty...
Often, as people are explaining things TO ME, they hear inconsistencies in their own words and beliefs about poor people, poverty, charities, related topics...Often, I just support people and tell them it is OKAY to have made some mistakes in thinking (people who figure out the inconsistencies are often VERY guilt-ridden and upset with themselves), but that it's awesome to get on the right track - and THAT is what counts.
I have little to give...but I take time to talk with anyone who wishes to talk about poverty.
get rid of socialism to get rid of poverty.
I agree getting rid of socialism in Cuba would alleviate poverty in Cuba. Cuba is one of the few remaining socialist countries left in the world.
Livelonger, BTW, these people do not consider themselves poor, and neither do I. Poverty is in the eye of the beholder. I consider them self-sufficient, enterprising and gutsy!
I do too! And I assume they are not stupid. Stupid would be turning down health care at a highly subsidized rate. Turning it down for your children would be criminally negligent.
To whom? Toward their own children? Yes, I suppose it would be.
To tell anyone that unless they buy X (some commercially available product) then they are criminally negligent is threatening to all people who don't want to buy X.
In a free country, it is not a crime to choose not to buy a product. In a police state, almost everything is criminal.
These people are not poor according to certain standards. We preceive them to be compared to our standards of living. If corruption is minimized in their government/military, they are allowed to grow their own food without western intervention(genetically modified crops), and their resources are not being corporatized by outside agents, and their youth return to help once educated abroad-these cultures can thrive without the UN, IMF, WB successfully but this is not the case.
The lifestyle of many indigenous people is self-sufficient and fulfilling to themselves, but when outsiders from so-called developed countries look at the way they are living, they label it poverty and try to restructure things along the lines of their own society. A hunter-gatherer or subsistence farmer may be happy and healthy and even well off in his own community, but he is not going to be able to pay for medical insurance or western medicine. Those things should not be forced on people.
An interesting tid bit I found.
William Ayres Executive Director, Co-founder.
Founded in 1975, World Hunger Year (WHY) is a leader in the fight against hunger and poverty in the United States and around the world. WHY advances long-term solutions to hunger and poverty by supporting community-based organizations that empower individuals and build self-reliance, i.e., offering job training, education and after school programs; increasing access to housing and healthcare; providing microcredit and entrepreneurial opportunities; teaching people to grow their own food; and assisting small farmers. WHY connects these organizations to funders, media and legislators. At WHY, we envision a world without hunger and poverty. If we can shift the prevailing viewpoint on why hunger and poverty exist, then we can influence the policymakers and put an end to this human tragedy.
Governments are not the solution. Elitist organizations masquerading as charities are not the solution.
The solution is for each one of us to personally give one other person at a time a helping hand, by sharing our knowledge and our time to help improve their situation. Then they can do the same for someone else, so on and so on.
The world governments, the world's charities, billions of individuals have donated trillions of dollars over the years and we are really not much better than when the efforts began. One on one education, sharing ideas, techniques, methodologies is much more effective and productive than throwing money at someone and moving on.
Logic: I agree with you. My point in posting that was to show how so many groups make it sound inviting enough to draw people in.
I personally help people one on one for many years in many ways and will continue to do so. But continue to spread your word, I'm sure many are listening.
If a charity is no good or doesn't do with the money what you want, you can stop giving them money. Government on the other hand...
The bottom line is that poverty is not an objective condition. Livelonger believes we have a lot of poor people in my community because they don't earn more than $40,000 a year. But if someone has a roof over his head, enough to eat, and savings enough to supply his and his family's needs for many years to come without working for others, then that person is not poor. In many ways, he is quite well off.
Poverty is not measured in dollars and cents. It is a matter of how you live and what you spend your money on. If your money is spent for you so that not enough is left to eat, then it doesn't matter what your original income was. To reduce world poverty, we need to empower the people to spend their own money, and we need to keep others from forcing them to spend it on things they do not wish to buy.
This is right of course - although if you live in a community of tv owning two car drivrs and you cycle because it is all you can afford you are subjectively poor. But as you say this is not really relevant - what is relevant is when the 'poor' are prevented helping themselves, as Omi Said says above. This also applies in western countries where a million petty laws stop people selling stuff, growing stuff or making stuff without licences and certificates. In most other countries it is normal for every little niche to be filled by someone, whether it is roadside food, clean your shoes or collect rubbish. We see these as degrading and/or dangerous but those surviving on it see it as a lifeline. Funny how the only people who benefit from banning any competition, however tiny, are the corporations who own all the shops and supply chains ?
Yesterday I helped someone who had a recent heart attack and living on a small income-- pick out good food buys instead of all the name brand high priced items.
However, I also realize that sometimes it's important to pay more for something even if that might be hard to afford.
I believe this is the reason another helping hand up is the answer.
And the people who will receive health care...
Not really. Certainly not in every case.
Sometimes modern health care causes more harm than good. Think of all the people who went in for exploratory surgery and came out dead. All the people who were given antidepressants to cope with depression, and ended up killing themselves due to the drugs. Think of all the C-sections that are merely precautionary measures to avoid malpractice, all the MRIs that are ordered simply because insurance covers it.
Think of all the alternative, less expensive, less invasive treatments that will never be given a chance because insurance doesn't cover them, and because caretakers would be charged with "criminal negligence" if they went against doctor's orders.
Think of all the people who are going to convert to become Jehovah's Witnesses just to avoid all of this.
Oh no! Not that! Witches and warlocks! That's another story. I feel a hub page comin' on. First we should have taken measures fifty years ago, world wide, since then we've added another 3 or four billion people to the equation, which, by the way, also contributes to global warming HELLO! Have you ever read about the rat cage experiments?
Where there is a rich, there is a poor. As the population is increasing, so are the expenditures increasing and thus, the middle class family cannot afford to fulfill their necessities. Subsequently, this results poverty. Solving poverty is not impossible, every thing is possible. According to my point of view, it all depends on the builders of our nation and they are the 'people'. It is in their hands to make their future bright or dull. To solve poverty, people should live in their budget, they should boycott any expensive stuff if it doesn't serves any purpose to them. What I think is that, if a man who believes in simplicity, and has a control over his desires can live more than 100 years without any financial struggles.
Maybe we should try to raise 100 million dollars and build a Islamic “cultural center” in New York City to promote tolerance and understanding, and offend the most charitable people in the world, then we will be able to generate 20 or 30 rupees to feed the hungry.
by Goodpal 20 months ago
Is giving money the only way to help poor people?You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money. - P. J. O'Rourke. What do you think?
by yvens 12 years ago
How can we make Goverments more aware and take action against world hunger and povertyWhat is a good way to make the people aware and take a PEACEFULL action so that the Goverments finally decide to really do something about it?
by Nira Perkins 10 years ago
In 25 years from now, do you think the status of world hunger will be better or worse?
by tbailey 13 years ago
What is the BIGGEST obstacle to solving World Hunger?Is it Logistics, Awareness, Indifference, Politics or something else?
by Daniel J. Neumann 11 years ago
Is it possible to help poor people and keep our liberty?I'm sorry; I guess I'm confused again. I never thought these two things were mutually exclusive. Why aren't there more Marxist Libertarians or Conservative Liberals out there? I guess I want to eat my cake when I have it.
by Terry Harman 2 years ago
What do you think would be one of the best steps we could take towards ending poverty?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|