Create a maximum wage. It's still capitalism if the max wage is 250 million a year.
2007-01-05 07:16:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
We see so many living in poverty around the world because we lack the will to take positive action on a large enough scale. Governments pledge support and then rarely meet the action they pledged to take. Far too many people are happy with where they are and do not push their governments to work on this problem. Churches on the other hand are in a period of growth, political activity and meaga church development. In order to continue to draw new members they attack 'hot button' issues such as abortion or homosexuality. Neither of which, incidentally, is addressed in the gospels. Poverty, which was addressed repeatedly in the gospels seems to be too big a problem and is not conducive to rallys and political campaigns. Therefore few churches take action in a way that involves the individual members of the congregation.
For direct and effective answers look at what the ONE campaign or the Clinton Foundation is doing. Both are approaching this problem in a practical and proacitve manner. Both are making a difference.
2007-01-05 15:20:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by toff 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is not up to "we" to put an end to poverty. Those who are in poverty are the only ones responsible for ending it.
Giving to people many times creates dependancy instead of self-sufficiency. Supporting someone is not always a positive thing.
2007-01-05 19:31:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ginger P 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A lot of it comes from people waiting for someone else to
step up to the plate first.
Some of it comes from people just accepting the world as it is.
Some of it comes from those who preach the capitalist dogma that there will always be winners and losers and they each deserve their lot in life.
I'm doing what I can at present. Ultimately it will be the poor, if their situation worsens substantially or if their numbers grow without any abatement, that will change things. Maybe in ways we won't like.
Peace
2007-01-05 15:40:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by zingis 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In my view first u have to do to checkout the people around u and to which extent u could help them in their matters
and second
do not focus ur lust of money on someone else's right and be positive i think these two things are best to end out poverty
and in simple words
The opposite to Poverty is Charity do best and make changes in urself first will make progress to not end but to get them less
2007-01-05 15:23:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chishmaan 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Get rid of money. The only way. If we had an economy that was all for one and one for all, and not socialism or communism, but some form of community that just provides for itself, then poverty and wealth would be measured by a persons happiness and not thier bank account.
Have you ever seen the movie "The Village"? That is a community of people that provide for themselves. They have no need for money, no differtial from one household to another. All the same.
2007-01-05 15:16:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by kb6jra 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Recruit High IQs when young and pay them for grades, instead of humiliating them with sacrifice, which sucks out their will to develop their talents. They create the value of all inanimate resources, but only a tiny fraction of superior human intelligence is used today.
2007-01-05 16:07:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
true..we have enough money to do that but it all gets sent to other countries and the rest go into the politicians pockets.. We take care of countries who won't give us the time of day. The govt needs to make it easier for the poor to go to school or work and pay daycare.. $300 a week for daycare is ridiculous.. people who work minimim wage or barely above can't pay that.. they shoud "enforce" child support orders.. I was to get child support but my baby's father worked "under the table" so I was screwed..They need to make it easier for u to survive in the everyday world..
2007-01-05 19:36:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by chilover 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Remove it from the vocabulary. Otherwise the game of "ending poverty" will continue although as one level of activity ends the name will just transfer to another level of activiy and thus will we always have poverty.
2007-01-05 16:17:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by JORGE N 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Poverty is a necessary part of the cycle of society. Without it, you would not have the opportunity to be typing on a computer right now. People from all walks of life have more or less, it's relative. Just like death and birth define one another, you can't have "things" in your life without someone, somewhere having nothing.
2007-01-05 15:17:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Big D 2
·
0⤊
3⤋