Still doesn't change that there will still be a lower 20%. You can not eliminate what will be considered poverty, no matter what. It's just not possible without simply killing every human on the planet.
Except that's not the point. In this case, poverty doesn't mean the lowest 20%. It means those who are below a certain level of wealth, specifically those who lack basic human needs.
Saying, "well, there's always going to be a bottom 20%" is far from the issue here if the bottom 20% has access to food, water, shelter, education, and a decent standard of living. This is neither the case in the US, nor in the world.
If poverty could have been ended in Africa by just throwing some money at it then the problem would have been solved many years ago.
Their is a lot of aid work being done their but getting relief into the hands of the poor an desperate when their is wars, maniacal dictators and corruption seemingly without end then things get difficult.
An economy is what Africa and other extremely poor nations need. They need education, commerce and birth control. Africa has a booming population and its because people there don't have acess to the proper ways to keep babies from happening.
Then of course you have the wars and genocides. If you supply one side with wealth then they will probably buy guns to kill the other side. Though this is only true in certain parts of Africa.
If all of the richest people in the world came together and created a giant nuclear arsenal and launch missiles around the world then we will finally be able to end poverty and the human race as well.
This is the easiest way to end poverty. Probably not the most moral way, but it's an idea. =)
1. On a more serious note, most billionaires are "philanthropists" who donate enormous amounts of money to charities or form charities of their own. To accuse, rich people of not being charitable is ignoring who Bill Gates is and his foundation. For sure, they could probably donate more and what they donate is probably a drop in the bucket of what they have but it is a bit ingeniousness to accuse group people of being uncharitable. Or at least imply that they are.
2. You can't buy solutions to the world's problem. Just like you can't buy out global warming or disease. There are political and logistical limitations to attempts to end poverty. For example, government corruption (Oil for Food program much?) or more mundane problems like who is living poverty and how to deliver what they need to elevate them out of poverty.
I feel that this is such a hard topic to discuss. Before we start pointing fingers we should ask our selves when the last time we gave money to charity was.
Been about two weeks here - slower than usual but this cold has kept me homebound.
Usually about 4 times a month of charity work (generally a full day) and financially once a month besides my tax deduction donations which I don't consider "real charity"
Except that's not the point. In this case, poverty doesn't mean the lowest 20%. It means those who are below a certain level of wealth, specifically those who lack basic human needs.
Saying, "well, there's always going to be a bottom 20%" is far from the issue here if the bottom 20% has access to food, water, shelter, education, and a decent standard of living. This is neither the case in the US, nor in the world.
Their is a lot of aid work being done their but getting relief into the hands of the poor an desperate when their is wars, maniacal dictators and corruption seemingly without end then things get difficult.
Then of course you have the wars and genocides. If you supply one side with wealth then they will probably buy guns to kill the other side. Though this is only true in certain parts of Africa.
This is the easiest way to end poverty. Probably not the most moral way, but it's an idea. =)
1. On a more serious note, most billionaires are "philanthropists" who donate enormous amounts of money to charities or form charities of their own. To accuse, rich people of not being charitable is ignoring who Bill Gates is and his foundation. For sure, they could probably donate more and what they donate is probably a drop in the bucket of what they have but it is a bit ingeniousness to accuse group people of being uncharitable. Or at least imply that they are.
2. You can't buy solutions to the world's problem. Just like you can't buy out global warming or disease. There are political and logistical limitations to attempts to end poverty. For example, government corruption (Oil for Food program much?) or more mundane problems like who is living poverty and how to deliver what they need to elevate them out of poverty.
3. The developing world is getting better. See this link: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
Usually about 4 times a month of charity work (generally a full day) and financially once a month besides my tax deduction donations which I don't consider "real charity"
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.