English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems to me, that even those below the poverty line in this nation are stilll fat. They obviously find food somewhere.

In contrast, people below the poverty level in say, Africa and Central America, are emaciated and covered with flies.

Should our government increase the living standard of people who can't buy more useless crap, but still have food to eat, or should they care about increasing the living standard of people who die by the hundreds everyday due to starvation?

2006-11-26 20:29:49 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

8 answers

The country is "fatter" so the scraps are better, at least more fattening.

Most of the horrible pictures you see from say Africa, there is a lot more going on than simple poverty, like genocide and tribal warfare.

In 1948 the Federal government made air-drops of fodder for the ranchers in the southwest because unusual snows had left the cattle in poor condition. Indians on reservations in the same area were allowed to starve to death. Things like this still go on in the U.S. and Canada, just don't get play in the press.

2006-11-26 20:43:15 · answer #1 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1 0

Hi, The difference is we have more agencies that can help the poor here. There is also a smaller ratio of poor here in United States. Most of those third world countries only have two classes of people. The very rich and the very poor. Because there are only two classes the living standards of the poor are more noticeable. We have, in addition to the rich and the poor, the middle class.

2006-11-26 20:38:44 · answer #2 · answered by sunshinesue_1999 4 · 1 0

Since more and more of the poor in this country are working poor (people who work and pay taxes but still can't afford the bounty this country has to offer) more attention needs to be paid to these poor in this country. Anyone who's working and paying taxes (therefore paying the politicians salaries) should be able to have decent housing, healthy food, and access to healthcare and a decent education. This government needs to take care of home first, then it can save the world.

2006-11-26 20:41:23 · answer #3 · answered by mztreasure999 3 · 0 0

The poor people in USA are still richer than poor people in say Philippines where I live. (I presume you are talking about USA). The Philippine prez said a couple of weeks ago that this country is not third world any more because the average yearly salary is $ 1,400.

2006-11-26 20:38:22 · answer #4 · answered by luosechi 駱士基 6 · 1 0

I hate to sound offensive but I know this is going to come off this way, so I am going to say now that I am sorry.

The world has about 6.4 billion people on it, it is grossly over populated. SO I don't really give a crap about third world countries with starving people and I dont give a crap about homeless people in the US because in the long run it would benefit the world if they all would just die.

2006-11-26 20:32:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

well i think that it is that alot of people in third world countries cant get the help but peolpe in australia can get help and make a life. we have one of the best goverment that trys and make ever person that needs help make it a singel mother or farmers.

2006-11-26 20:37:48 · answer #6 · answered by mikay e 1 · 0 0

The difference is that our country does more to help the starving poeple in those other countries.

2006-11-26 20:32:12 · answer #7 · answered by jasam4ever08 5 · 2 1

the difference is welfare

2006-11-26 20:32:19 · answer #8 · answered by Dirk Diggler(the one and only) 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers