Should we fund for the poverty that exists in our own country before the third-w

1. 45

   mmaizeposted 8 years ago

   Should we fund for the poverty that exists in our own country before the third-world countries?
   
   There's poverty that exists in industrialzed nations and we are also aware of the poverty in the developing third world countries. Assuming that most of us live in a well off country, and considering what is ethical, is it reasonable to deal with our own problem of poverty first before we lend a hand to the underdeveloped nations?

   replyreport
2. 55

   DARICANMAMIposted 8 years ago

   I have always said we need to take care of home before any where else granted there is poverty every where but just look around and you can find people in need in your own town.  It makes me sick to think we (the USA) can drop off food to a country we are at war with  the next day and it takes 5 days for help to reach people in the US.  Im sorry but are we not the country short on cash but we can give out money like we have that good to help.  So I think this so called well off country called the USA isn't really that well off when we have kids going to bed every night with out food and or real beds to sleep in let alone their own bed and kids with out coats in the winter. When there is no need for food banks and coat drives and homeless shelters and every other kind of help people need or may need then and only then do we need to give a hand outs.

   replyreport
3. 65

   Lady_Eposted 8 years ago

   and what about "the second world" or isn't there one?

   replyreport
4. 45

   mmaizeposted 8 years ago

   Lady_E, Second World countries would be the Communist States within the Soviet Union, so in this case, an example would be Russia.
   
   Some would say that Second World countries have the characteristics of a First World country, which means they are commercialized and economically stable, and the Third world countries--low level of material living.
   
   I think some people are getting confused with the question I'm asking so let me put it in easier terms that people can understand: Should the government and its citizens take care of the poverty (the homeless, etc.) in their country (for ex. the USA) before they help out a "poor" country (ex. Some parts of Africa, South America etc.)

   replyreport
5. 51

   Beef -N- Vidsposted 8 years ago

   We should definitely focus on our own problems first. When I say that I mean all of our problems, I am from the USA, and I believe that we should stop trying to police the entire world…exactly who made that our responsibility. We do a poor job of policing things at home, how are we ever going to succeed on another continent. For example, our borders are not secure, how then are we supposed to secure the borders of IRAQ from terrorist entering and leaving, trafficking weapons, etc…we can’t even stop the flow of drugs from south and central America into our own country.
   We should not be sending public funds to help out poor countries unless we caused them to be poor, we have serious economical problems right now. HowEVER, if individuals wish to send money to help other countries develop infrastructure, education, or medical practices…well in the name of freedom do what you please with your personal funds.
   To take it one step further…there is such a thing as the world bank…and the U.N. two organizations that should be doing more concerning the topics I brought up.

   replyreport
6. 54

   outdoorsguyposted 8 years ago

   yes... I find it hypocritical to claim to care about the homeless, and the starving as long as they are in another nation so you dont have  to see them.

   replyreport