World Hunger and U.S. hunger

[Amphion]

I have been thinking about this lately and it doesnt make sense, yet, it does. I was in Atlanta the other day driving through, and I see many, many people sitting out under the bridges. Their only possessions are the close they have on, and if their lucky a Milk Crate to it on. After seeing this I thought more and more. Why are these people like this? US can spend billions of dollars feeding other people of the world ( wich many are our enemies ) but we cant do anything about our own starving people. This is absurd and is basically a slap in the face to these people from their own country. Many of them also have fought in Vietnam for their country when they should not have been their anyway. The homeless starving people in atlanta are not the only problem. Theirs homeless starving people all across america and yet we can not help them as much as we can because we have to help other countries first. Im not trying to seem selfish here and helping other countries is good. But you have to fix yourself first. These politicians only care about what the world thinks of america. It just breaks their heart if another country disapproves of us. We also eem to have to be better then everyone else. All the while we have are own america blood laying on our streets. It disgusts me. This is my opinion. You may criticise it all you want for it will not bother me. What do you all think about this?

[velvet paws]

*sniff* I know that wasn't really THAT deep a post...but I totally agree with everything you say and yes every now and then I try to forget about stuff like that...but it's always there...ignoring it wont make it better..it's like a poster my RE teacher has on her classroom wall, it goes something like this:

"In a battle of the weak and the strong, not taking sides is not to stay nutral but to side with the strong"

heh just it sounded alot kooler...but it sorta fits with this topic..if you don't do something about it..then it will only get worse...

...oh iduno, I wonder if it makes sense.... :confused:

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Amphion [/i]
[B]I These politicians only care about what the world thinks of america. It just breaks their heart if another country disapproves of us. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1]I think it's a slight oversimplification of the issue.

I understand what you're saying, but remember that the United States has welfare systems which can assist people who choose to be assisted.

In some countries, there is no real functioning Government, let alone a welfare network. And so, it is reasonable that rich countries like the USA would want to be morally responsible for poorer nations.

Having said that, I agree that not enough is being done to combat local poverty.

The amount of homeless people in Melbourne is slowly growing -- which is fairly shocking, as Melbourne has never really had homeless people at all. It's worrying because of the fact that it seems the state government isn't dealing with the problem in any way.

However, I do know that there are systems in place to help homeless people. The question is, why are many of these people not seeking help?

So yeah, I see what you're saying...but I think that there are other factors involved. The USA isn't too concerned about keeping face I think, based on some of the country's international policies. And I wouldn't say that the USA is "feeding its enemies" as such -- it is very often the regimes which are enemies, and not the people who are unfortunate enough to live under such regimes.[/size]

[BabyGirl]

[color=deeppink]I just want to add to some stuff James has mentioned.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]
I understand what you're saying, but remember that the United States has welfare systems which can assist people who choose to be assisted.[/quote][/b]

[color=deeppink]...and many people very much resent welfare, for good reasons.[/color]

[quote][b]In some countries, there is no real functioning Government, let alone a welfare network. And so, it is reasonable that rich countries like the USA would want to be morally responsible for poorer nations.[/quote][/b]

[color=deeppink]Sadly, most of our foreign aid doesn't actually get to the people, it is instead intercepted by the government...whatever form it may be.[/color]

[quote][b]Having said that, I agree that not enough is being done to combat local poverty.[/b][/quote]

[color=deeppink]Agreed.[/color]

[b][quote]However, I do know that there are systems in place to help homeless people. The question is, why are many of these people not seeking help?[/b][/quote]

[color=deeppink]They aren't aware that there are things that can help them. As a second note, I doubt there are enough programs to help all of the homeless [in, say, NYC]. Harsh reality. :huh:

We need Lady M in here...[/color]

[James]

[size=1]BabyGirl, you make a very good point about a lot of that aid going to regimes.

The best example of that I can think of would be North Korea.

North Korea receives millions of dollars of aid every year, but diverts 90% of it into the development of balistic missiles and other weapons.

I'd rather cut off aid to these countries completely -- the alternative creates a worrying scenario.

By the way, it's good to see some people putting thought into their topics lately...good job everyone. ;)[/size]

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][size=1]
By the way, it's good to see some people putting thought into their topics lately...good job everyone. ;)[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]For now at least ;)

I do enjoy these types of topics, they're really the ones I wish we had more of. Sometimes I find the need to start a "semi-intelligent" conversation, but I'm usually at a loss for what to make it about. Endless cycle -__-

Anyway, about the whole foreign aid thing, I'd like to share a story that my econ teacher shared with me. It's both humorous and depressing at the same time:

One day in economics Mr. Aldrich [my teacher] was talking about the foreign aid that the United States gives to other countries. Now, Mr. Aldrich has a friend that is in the Peace Corps (at least I THINK that's how he heard this story) in a remote part of Africa.

Now, a lot of Africa is "uncivilized" by Western standards, and they know little beyond what tradition has taught them. Africa also has a HUGE infant mortality rate problem, where most of the babies die before they are a year old. It is made worse by the fact that women have child after child after child, and know nothing of modern contraceptives.

One day the Peace Corps went to this "remote tribal village" in Africa and dropped off some "modern contraceptives" or condoms as we may know them.

Well, the Peace Corps automatically assumed that these tribes people knew how to [i]use[/i] the condoms...which was indeed a large assumption to make.

They came back a week later to find the condoms [i]covering sticks outside of the village[/i]...the tribes people thought that just hanging this condoms up in front of the village would be enough to ward off pregnancy.

Yeah...I mean, it's funny when you first read it, but honestly...isn't that sad? I think so :([/color]

[James]

[size=1]Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, topics like abortion or something can be a bit heated...but a fairly deep yet relatively neutral topic (like this one) is good to have whenever possible.

As for the second part of your post, I definitely think that Africa is a very difficult situation. It seems to me that many of the national Governments in Africa are just not "with it" in terms of physically building infrastructure and creating programs for economic development and such.

The rest of the world seems to throw a lot of cash at Africa -- but it doesn't really do much. I think more is needed in terms of actually going in and building hospitals, school and irrigation systems etc...

That is done already...but I think we need more of that and less throwing cash in people's faces -- the cash isn't really solving any problems.[/size]

[Justin]

I might be just a little late but I would like to comment on James' post here.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[b]
I understand what you're saying, but remember that the United States has welfare systems which can assist people who choose to be assisted.[/b][/quote]
I have to agree with BabyGirl. Many people hate the US welfare system.

[quote][b]
In some countries, there is no real functioning Government, let alone a welfare network. And so, it is reasonable that rich countries like the USA would want to be morally responsible for poorer nations.[/b][/quote]
This is true, we should be considerate of those in other countries who need help. But, in my opinion, not at the expense of our people. But, I suppose no government can ever be completely perfect. Sad to say: there is no Utopia.

[quote][b]
Having said that, I agree that not enough is being done to combat local poverty.[/b][/quote]
That I definately agree with. But, that just goes back to my last comment: There's just no such thing a perfect government.

[quote][b]The amount of homeless people in Melbourne is slowly growing -- which is fairly shocking, as Melbourne has never really had homeless people at all. It's worrying because of the fact that it seems the state government isn't dealing with the problem in any way.[/b][/quote]
Well, in Atlanta(the city originally mentioned in this topic) there are many homeless people. Now, I know for a fact that Georgia(me living right across a river from it)does very little to aid its homeless. Sure, the politicians talk about it, but I've never actually witnessed anything done. So, watch out; Or Melbourne might end up like Atlanta.

[quote][b]However, I do know that there are systems in place to help homeless people. The question is, why are many of these people not seeking help?[/b][/quote]
Well, in my knowledge of the US welfare system(which is limited), it can be harder for certain people to get help. The rest, just don't want it. Why: I don't know.

[quote][b]So yeah, I see what you're saying...but I think that there are other factors involved. The USA isn't too concerned about keeping face I think, based on some of the country's international policies. And I wouldn't say that the USA is "feeding its enemies" as such -- it is very often the regimes which are enemies, and not the people who are unfortunate enough to live under such regimes.[/b][/QUOTE]

A perfect example of this is the Taliban. It was our enemy, not the Afgan people themselves. That is why we spend money to aid them. Unfortunatly, a lot of that aid wound up in the hands of the enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree with both you, James, and BabyGirl; I do like to see topics like this one pop up occasionally. A break from the normal madness is always nice. I wish I had had more to say for this one.

-Justin

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo] Unfortunately, providing for the less fortunate people in the US is not as easy as it should be. Frequently, welfare money doesn't get where it needs too. Food stamps are traded for drugs, peoples social security checks are stolen or used by greedy friends or family members. And for those that do get the money many times it is just misspent due to a lack of responsibility.

The US welfare system is a faultless system in theory. It gives money to those who are going through trying times and are out of work, yet will return to te job market, or to those who are disabled and can't return to the job market. Because of the abuse of this system the money has thinned out and is being mismanaged.

There are also a lot of people that have too much pride to ask for help from the government. All of these factors are taken into account by politicians everyday, however, there have been no solutions that do no require a huge revamping of the US economic structure.[/color]

[MarkM]

your absoulty right :toothy: but that is tuching:bawl:

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo] Unfortunately, providing for the less fortunate people in the US is not as easy as it should be. Frequently, welfare money doesn't get where it needs too. Food stamps are traded for drugs, peoples social security checks are stolen or used by greedy friends or family members. And for those that do get the money many times it is just misspent due to a lack of responsibility.

The US welfare system is a faultless system in theory. It gives money to those who are going through trying times and are out of work, yet will return to te job market, or to those who are disabled and can't return to the job market. Because of the abuse of this system the money has thinned out and is being mismanaged.

There are also a lot of people that have too much pride to ask for help from the government. All of these factors are taken into account by politicians everyday, however, there have been no solutions that do no require a huge revamping of the US economic structure.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you, and I would say that the US welfare system is famous the world over for being pretty shabby.

But in some ways, it proves that welfare systems can work if designed properly.

Australia has the most successful welfare network out of any country on Earth -- and sure, there are still homeless people and what not, but the proportion of those people per head of population is far lower than most other developed nations.

It's really a question of Governments having the strength to actually make fundamental changes to the system...or perhaps, overcoming laziness to make changes.

[Justin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]

I agree with you, and I would say that the US welfare system is famous the world over for being pretty shabby.

But in some ways, it proves that welfare systems can work if designed properly.

Australia has the most successful welfare network out of any country on Earth -- and sure, there are still homeless people and what not, but the proportion of those people per head of population is far lower than most other developed nations.

It's really a question of Governments having the strength to actually make fundamental changes to the system...or perhaps, overcoming laziness to make changes. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think part of the problem is just the mentality that many Americans have. Not to bash my own country, but we do tend to be quite lazy steriotypically. For instance: In the area of Physical Education US students are among the world's lowest in overall performance and overall score on the Physical Fitness Test. Granted, that has nothing to do with the US Welfare System, but it just demonstrates the laziness of American society. While there are those who need help, many people would rather live off the sweat of everyone else's brow as opposed to actually contributing to the greater good. I can't have any respect for someone who drives a $60,000 dollar vehicle and lives off Welfare. I simply can't. I don't know what the government could ever do to be completely fair about this subject because people will always find a way to take advantage of it.

-Justin

[Chaos]

I'll be honest real quick before I start. I skimmed over most of the posts, due to the fact that I'm pressed for time right now. So if you see any of your stuff in here, kindly tell me please.

Anyway, to speak of:
[quote]
[b]I understand what you're saying, but remember that the United States has welfare systems which can assist people who choose to be assisted.[/b][/quote]

People have to apply, then be accepted for welfare...

~~
1) I say stay out of other countries' buisiness; Let them deal with their own problems.
2) Let the US deal with it's own problems.
3) Stop spending usless funds on things like space travel, work on lowering the poverty level, and raising minimum wage.

Those are my basics... Disagree/Agree? No/Yes? I can't care...

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SuperSayian [/i]
[B]
~~
1) I say stay out of other countries' buisiness; Let them deal with their own problems.
2) Let the US deal with it's own problems.
3) Stop spending usless funds on things like space travel, work on lowering the poverty level, and raising minimum wage.

Those are my basics... Disagree/Agree? No/Yes? I can't care... [/B][/QUOTE]

1) I don't think that's a very constructive attitude toward world affairs. Socities around the world are becoming more and more intertwined (particularly with globalization) and therefore, I think it's unacceptable for richer nations to "ignore" the needs of people from poorer countries. As I said, not every country is able to deal with its problems, especially if it is lacking an fundamental structure to do so.

2) The USA has plenty of money to deal with its own problems, but it's okay for other countries (who have better welfare systems or whatnot) to use their experience in the field to provide advice.

3) I really disagree with that one. It's important to spend money in all of those areas -- but it has to be done properly. Especially with regard to social services. It's not necessarily the amount of money, it's how that money is spent.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SuperSayian [/i]
[B]

~~
1) I say stay out of other countries' buisiness; Let them deal with their own problems.
2) Let the US deal with it's own problems.
3) Stop spending usless funds on things like space travel, work on lowering the poverty level, and raising minimum wage.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo] I know your pressed for time so you couldn't elaborate on you feelings but here are some of my problems wit those ideas.

1) because of the world economy, it is not smart to have a (I know I am going to spell this wrong, sorry) lazzie-faire attitude towards the policies of other countries. A nations leaders must now be incredibly focused on whatis going on in the world because all of our economies are based on one another.

2) In my mind, that is exactly wha is wrong with the US government right now. We think we are the best and our government has become too arrogant to assimilate ideasfrom other countries. The only reason the US became a successfull country was due to its ability to assimilate several good ideas and create a philosophy around it.

3) Space travel will be important one day...I say keep the funding coming.[/color]

[Delian]

I guess i'm coming into this topic pretty late...but better late than never.

While the Australian Welfare system is quite more effective than anywhere else, it still isn't perfect. There has been a number of occasions shown on the news about how some people live off the dole they receive and go surfing everyday of the year, while others are actually working for the dole. Ofcourse there are other stories about how people abuse it to an incredible extent. For example, there was this story on one lady was still collecting her mother's pension after she died.

Plus, any aid sent to Africa and other countries of the like, are very much being abused by the government. Otherwise how else would you explain that about 20% or less of the population is filthy rich, while the other 80% is disgutingly poor, not to mention the lack of development of infrustructure and natural resources. Greed will be their downfall if the aid given to them isn't carefully monitered.

That's my opinion anyway. Make of it what you will.

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B]

[color=indigo] 1) because of the world economy, it is not smart to have a (I know I am going to spell this wrong, sorry) lazzie-faire attitude towards the policies of other countries.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Laissez-Faire :)

And I agree. It's not like the US does this now, but if they [i]were[/i] to adopt the laissez-faire attitude, world trade would take one HUGE faltering step...if not crash altogether. And while I doubt the latter...'tis possible...and blah :drunk:

French is frying my brain -__-[/color]

[Charles]

Having studied Urban issues for quite a bit now, I feel compelled to put my two cents in on this.

First of all, the Welfare system is more harmful to low income families than it is helpful. The amount that the government gives out is hardly enough to support the average low income family. Furthermore, the family is restricted in the work force. If they make a certain amount of money, their assistance will be taken away. This doesn't even have to be a large income. Usually, people in this situation become dependent on Welfare and just give up on supporting themselves. It's hard for them to get a decent line of work anyway, because they usually have children to support and can only work very limited hours.

There will always be homeless people in the world. If there was no lower class, then there wouldn't be a middle class. American government actually wants homeless people in America, as there is always the need for a lower class. Further crippling the homeless are tenement housing. The government actually funds landlords to run barely livible buildings with hardly a window or plumbing, tax free. It's all social isolation; sectioning off the less desirables. How do you think these buildings get passed for inspection? Someon's pockets are getting lined. Companies will also purchase run down houses just waiting for the right organization to purchase the land. This leaves people homeless, with nowhere to go. It's sad really. A group of citizens once defied the government, fixed the houses, and moved people in, only to watch government board them up again. Heck, they just did the blood thirsty corporate sharks a favor by fixing them up.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i]
[B]

There will always be homeless people in the world. If there was no lower class, then there wouldn't be a middle class. American government actually wants homeless people in America, as there is always the need for a lower class. Further crippling the homeless are tenement housing. The government actually funds landlords to run barely livible buildings with hardly a window or plumbing, tax free. It's all social isolation; sectioning off the less desirables. How do you think these buildings get passed for inspection? Someon's pockets are getting lined. Companies will also purchase run down houses just waiting for the right organization to purchase the land. This leaves people homeless, with nowhere to go. It's sad really. A group of citizens once defied the government, fixed the houses, and moved people in, only to watch government board them up again. Heck, they just did the blood thirsty corporate sharks a favor by fixing them up. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't agree with the idea that if there were no lower class, there'd be no middle class. That just doesn't make sense.

I also don't think that Government [i]wants[/i] homeless people -- but in most circumstances, Governments simply throw up their hands because they don't know how to deal with the issue of homelessness.

If homeless people weren't around, the economy would be more stable and there would be much less crime and drug use. So it is in Government's interest to make positive changes in this area. However, as I've said, most Governments wash their hands of the issue because they just don't know how to deal with the core problems. Either that, or they are just unwilling to spend the required amounts of money.

But it's certainly a fixable problem and one that Government all over the world should be working harder on.

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]

I don't agree with the idea that if there were no lower class, there'd be no middle class. That just doesn't make sense. [/B][/QUOTE]

Now how's the best way to explain this? Well, I guess the best example is a visual example. Hold up your thumb, index finger, and middle finger. The thumb will represent the lower class. The index finger represents the middle class and the middle finger represents the upper class. Now, if you eliminate the lower class by putting your thumb down, there is no longer a middle ground. In the end, you need at least three classes to have a middle class.

Based on what I was taught and in what I believe, I feel that if you eliminate the lower class, what you're basically left with is an upper and lower class; the elite and the norm. If there were only two classes it would remind me of the days of English lords and surfs. I know it wouldn't be quite as archaic in practice, but I have a feeling that social mobility might be damaged with only two classes. After all, it didn't work back then...

I feel that this ties in with goverment neglecting the needs of the poor. Basically, a lot of homelessness is the result of white flight and the disintigration of industry in urban areas. As long as people suffer from the four basic theories, (split labor, unified of ethnic relations, middle Man Minorities, and the split class, the lower class will never be appeased. It all comes down to human ignorance, which I don't see going away.....

[Amphion]

Those are good reply's all of you. After reading What Babygirl and James said I have come to agrea with what they said. Like what was said about welfare, it is very messed up in the US. On MTV the showed a rapper (ODB) who in no way needs welfare ( he makes millions) goiing to the welfare office and cashing his welfare check that he still gets. If thats not messed up then what is? I have also heard veterans say things about their country not owing them anything and they if they really need help they would get it. I guess for me its one of those things that you feel very strongly about both sides of the issue.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i]
[B]

Based on what I was taught and in what I believe, I feel that if you eliminate the lower class, what you're basically left with is an upper and lower class; the elite and the norm. If there were only two classes it would remind me of the days of English lords and surfs. I know it wouldn't be quite as archaic in practice, but I have a feeling that social mobility might be damaged with only two classes. After all, it didn't work back then...

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]We have moved past the point in society where we would have such differences between class though.

If you were to remove the lower class, you would invariably be looking at an increase in living standards across the board. By removing the lower class, you effectively put everyone on a smiliar footing, in terms of the basic living standards they receive.

So I don't think social mobility will be damaged at all -- if anything, I think that the removal of a lower class would significantly push society forward. It would mean that we would not physically need such expansive welfare system and we could focus on the betterment of existing society rather than trying to drag along the floundering lower class behind us.

It may not have worked back then -- but today isn't back then. We are in a more enlightened world and culture. And I don't think that you can apply old-world principals to today's society.

The fact is, a lower class can theoretically be removed. And doing so would be a good thing. But having said that, there is still the question of those people who would choose not to work and who would basically choose not to participate (many for ideological reasons). So there are still hurdles, even if a theoretical situation can be put into practice.[/color]