Why We Should Be Forced to Help the Poor Essay

In “What Should a Billionaire Give?” Peter Singer makes some good points, however, I disagree that “the United States should contribute more than 36 percent of total global donations” (p.588). I agree that the wealthy or those in a position to give or assist the less fortunate should do so. I also believe that it should be their choice, not for the purposes of easing a guilty conscience or for public notoriety. If wealthy Americans were mandated to make contributions to relieve poverty, that should be optional and secondary to eliminating poverty in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, nearly 565,000 people were homeless in the United States in 2015! I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t assist or contribute to global efforts to end poverty. We can contribute a lower percentage while investing a percentage in improving our economy. A wealthy nation will have a better impact on global efforts as opposed to a few wealthy individuals.

The United States, a place where anyone can “pick themselves up by the bootstraps” and realize the American dream of a comfortable lifestyle. Well, for over 30 million Americans this is no longer possible. Though we live in the richest and most powerful country in the world there are many who are living under or at the precipice of the poverty level, “While the United States has enjoyed unprecedented affluence, low-wage employees have been testing the American doctrine that hard work cures poverty” (The Working Poor, 4). This translates to families of four making around 18,850$ a year. And as soon as they find work or move just slightly above that 18,850$ a year (which is still a meager and deprived way to

Wealth in america is only reserved for the top 1%. Even out of those who live in the

Today's news is full of speculation and debate about the national debt, taxes and potential cuts to vital programs that serve those in need. However, the conversation often seems overly caught up in the finer points of politics and media coverage rather than the real people that these decisions affect. I think it's fair to say that American attitudes toward the poor are more often than not, disdain and fear. There's a common myth that people are forced into poverty because they are simply lazy or inferior, the truth is it is harder to feed and clothe your family than ever before. Poverty in this country is not accidental, it is a direct result of funneling wealth upstream; the rich get richer and the poor suffer. " The poor you will always

Welfare is a program in the United States that provides economic support to citizens who are unemployed or underemployed. This program was started during the 1930’s to help out the millions of people who were affected by the great depression. By the 1960’s the welfare program was not being used the same and many believed it was being misused. The welfare program in the United States should be abolished because it costs more than it helps, it is a waste of money, it is abused, and because it teaches bad work ethics.

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

Due to the need for campaign funds by both the Democratic and Republican party, representatives and party leaders are easily influenced by the alluring presence of money presented by the wealthy. Consequently, in terms of economic position, laws and policies tend to favor the privileged rather than the overall majority. For instance, beginning in the 1970s, corporate America started to invest more money and focus into politics. A large amount of corporate spending is on lobbying. In contrast, most Americans don’t have an organization to lobby for them. This being so, because the wealthy have more lobbying clout, the government tends to pay closer attention to the concerns of the very privileged.

It is crazy to hear that the top richest people in this world have the same wealth as the poorest 3 billion people in this world. Even though rich countries are giving aid to poor countries, the huge gap difference between their wealth is due to large corporations form rich countries taking more money from poor countries, and this really explains a lot why poor country never have the chance to actually thrive. The thought that poor people should be able to come up from where they came from, which is a thought in many people's minds, especially those who have money, isn't all that simple.

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

Living in different countries, we always wonder if everyday life routines are the same. Some of these routines, would include education, social life, and most important of all career perspectives. Rules and procedures vary from the different business you apply to however do the different rules and procedures vary from the countries that business thrive from? The purpose of this essay is to describe the differences and similarities from the National Association of Social Workers and the International Federation of Social Workers.

I believe homeless people should be helped by giving them useful resources, encouraging them to get an education, and guiding them to opportunities they can reference to succeed on their own.

American factories can comprise of about up to 1000 workers. If American factories are shut down and moved to other countries, this takes many American people out of work. Companies are now also importing jobs. This is where employers hire people such as immigrants to work less than minimum wage. For that reason, many Americans are stuck with the other minimum wage, and low-paying jobs that barely get them through life. Because of this, many Americans are working full time jobs that are below the Federal poverty line. These types of people are often called the “working poor”. Due to this the working poor have to run to welfare. This affects all Americans because taxpayers are the ones paying for welfare. The more jobs that are taken

Poverty and inequality exist in every developed culture and often are only patched in order for society to continue upwardly. Poverty and inequality in the United States exists for many reasons; reasons that very from the prospective lens. Interpretive theories in particular ask us to question our reality and its constructs. Interpretive theories require us to looks at the world as a social realm, one that we created and constantly change. Interpretive theories study the relationship between power and the construction of social roles as well as the invisible collection of patterns and habits that make up domination, (Delgado & Stefanic, 2001). Susan Kemp argues that the view of the world is dominated by the experiences of white western

Thousands of individuals are living in poverty. Why is it that this worldwide dilemma is still rising in rapid numbers till this day? Is it because of a lack of authoritative power, or a lack of one’s self control to do good? Despite the unknown cause, it has managed to drastically affect the lives of many. Poverty is like a curse, one that is wrongfully placed, difficult to get out of, and resistant to many forms of help.

     Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you were hungry, underclothed, and at risk for death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others are. With that in mind a question of whether or not rich nations have an obligation to help those nations if need arises. Professor of philosophy Peter Singer and biologist Garrett Hardin both have very different opinions on this matter and the following paper will focus on their arguments.