Poverty; is it cureable?

Even people put into the Gov't protection, are richer than the poor.

Now I'm not going to say "oh, I can't afford shit, I'm poor you're not" the matter at hand is, I have an computer, I have food in my stomach, I am warm, and when it rains, I'm dry.

Now, 50% Of People living in poverty in the US, do have cable tv
25% Of People living in poverty in the US, can't afford shoes much less shelter.
25% Of People living in poverty in the US, figure hell - screw wellfare checks, not enough - I'ma hustle,kill,pimp girls out, fight, and steal.

Oh well, poverty is going to make that happen.

 

The poor stay poor and the rich get richer. Forgetting 3rd world countries, people in the UK and quite possibly the US are poor for a reason, mainly due to lazyness so yes they should stay poor. Tax payers should not be funding them because they cannot be bothered to go out and earn a wage.

It's not my problem

 

They don't choose to be poor, but I'm not morally responsible for them.

 

wait... im confused are we talking about people in third world countries poverty? or are we talking about people in a rich and prosperous country that work " 9 to 5" jobs?

 

We're talking about poverty in general, although there is no "cure", there is temporary solutions.

 

Poverty isn't curable it all depends on where you live but poverty causes death that reduces population on earth which is kind of helpful as the world is already over populated. Poverty occurs because the earth wasn't meant to hold a billion people. We are basically using up all the resources screwing other people.

 

every country has free public schools.. well most anyways, if they continue their studies as much as they can they wouldn't have to live the rest of their lives in debt or begging on streets.

 

Poverty is a relative term anyways. Isn't it poverty if you have something rich to compare it to? The fact of the matter is there is no "cure" to the problem. Many people are in poverty because as other people stated, they are lazy. A lot aren't. Like shredder had said though, it's not our moral obligation to help them out. Yes it's nice to help out others, but there is no need to impoverish the people that worked hard and did something with their lives because others decided to be lazy, watch cable T.V. and live on wellfare.

Why would I want to give out my hard earned money to people who slacked off and didn't do a thing with their lives. I for one am not going to stand by and feed the problem with my money so people can continue to be lazy.

I am not trying to be mean here to those people in 3rd world countries who really don't have a choice. I feel sympathy for those really going through tough times, but I NEVER feel obligated to pay for their expenses. It's not my job.

 

So those who are under the age of 5 and starving in Africa, are supposed to go and get a '9 to 5' job. Poverty does not just mean homeless in the more evolved countries such as the USA, poverty is all over the world; including such areas of Africa, Nigeria and so forth.

I believe World Vision is doing a great job, but there is only so much they can do. The suggestion of communism was brought into this topic, that has failed miserably by 90% of those who have tried it.

 

I'm not going to tell starving Africans what to do. My comment was mainly directed towards those in the U.S. who consider themselves "poor". Poverty does not exist in the U.S. If you want poverty, try India or Africa.

 

I misunderstood what you said, sorry.

There is no long term cure as yet, but there are temporary solutions in place to help those in need. It seems to me like everyone is sitting around, just waiting for that one person to come up with a solution to solve poverty.

 

poverty is not cureable seeing as there are too many people in it

 

i think it is cureable but only if the rich stop being rich and every1 lives in the same way. then there will be enough wealth for every1 and enough food for every1 aswell.

 

You act as if there is a limited amount of wealth available. If this were the case, you might have a conscionable argument, but the amount of wealth that lies waiting to be tapped is, practically speaking, unlimited. One man can become wealthy without causing others to become poor.

 

Did you know that if Canadians and Americans didn't buy perfume for one year, we could save enough money to feed the hungry for three years?

 

People are used to living the lifestyle of being poor. Everyday they deal it, and it becomes part of their everyday life. We shouldn't be too worried about these countries unless they cause a world-wide spread of diseases. And for poverty in America, what do you mean "cureable"? Poverty isn't a disease; it's a person's lifestyle. And I get what you mean. There is a way to fix it; try to offer jobs to the poor to try and get them back on their feet. It's practical but wont happen.

 

There's not enough resources for everyone in the world, so I would say it's not curable unless fat Americans take a break on food and share it with the hungry in Africa or anywhere for that matter.

 

For you to profit is for another to take a loss.


As long as there are first world countries there will be third world countries.

However, humanitarian efforts that would seek to improve ancient farming methods, and standardize education, are doing the right thing. People who just want to give them money are idiots.


Think of it this way:
Would you rather give a bum a shower, let him borrow your good shoes and a razor, and get him a job, or throw a $10 you thought was a $1 at his heaped pile of trash?

 

Their hunger is not my problem, nor am I responsible for it.

Wrong. For all intents and purposes, there is an unlimited amount of wealth in the universe. I can take 100 men off the streets, bring them to a plantation I own, and have them mine gold. I make a huge profit, pay them handsomely, everybody's happy.