The Homeless Advocate

I can give you reasons I’ve heard, but I don’t believe they’re entirely valid.
One reason used to argue against helping to end poverty is that often our resources given to poor nations end up in corrupt hands and don’t actually go to the people who need them most. While this can be true in some cases, most experienced charities and NGOs (nongovernmental organizations that work in the field of fighting poverty) create a series of checks and balances to make sure resources do get to the right people. Those checks and balances aren’t perfect, but, hey, think of all the crooks who enriched themselves after Hurricane Katrina. Corruption happens anywhere.
Another reason given is that we may actually damage or destroy the delicate socioeconomic system that works for a country. For instance, if we go in and build wells and schools, we may be taking work away from locals who could do the work and earn a living for their families. This also is a valid criticism–but the need to provide work and respect the local economy is usually taken into account by established, good organizations working abroad.
Then there’s the argument that poor people abroad are poor because they’re lazy and don’t have the American work ethic. People who use this argument might not be as quick to use it if they were to have all their own resources wiped out by a major medical crisis, lawsuit, or other disaster. It’s often said most Americans are just one paycheck away from being homeless.
Here are some things to consider:
* Because our economies worldwide are so interconnected, what impacts one nation often impacts our own. By helping another nation to become stable, we help our own to remain economically healthy.
* Economically healthy nations that we have helped are more likely to be our allies and not our enemies. Extreme poverty breeds despair and eventually terrorism.
* Many of the third-world nations that are impoverished got that way in part because they were taken advantage of by richer, more powerful nations. The U.S. has wielded political, economic, and even military clout to ensure it has the upper hand in trade negotiations. Often, the results have been spectacularly unfair to poor nations.
* Finally, why does it have to be either/or? We have enough resources to help people abroad and at home. We consume more per capita than any nation on earth. What would it hurt to consume a little less and give a little more? The more we do, in small, consistent ways, to share our resources and good will with others, the better world citizens and Americans we’ll be.

Help those who need help most badly.

I do believe we should take care of our own country first. My reasons for this are…..(1)the money we pay in taxes was intended for the people of our country first and (2)the stronger our country is the more able we are to help others. To me it’s like a father. A father feeds and clothes his own children first and then helps the neighbors.

I would encourage helping impoverished nations. Not by throwing a bunch of money at the problem with no plan as to how it should be used but by taking money to show people how to provide better lives for themselves. Education programs, health programs, teaching people skills so they can support themselves.

It does bother me that despite working full time I cannot afford a test the doctor said I need to have yet our countrry gives our tax money to SOME countries who steal it instead of using it to help their people.