Response To Poverty Article

I think that it is very unfortanate to see the worlds richest countries not helping out enough to eradicate poverty. I think that it was very unfortanate to see the U.S. promise to reach a point and come up alot shorter than they should have. I think that his arguement is compelling and that he makes a good point but I still think poverty can't really be stopped. As we said in class and as the graphs showed, people always hold back something or don't give as much as they should have. I think this is why It can't be stopped. People say they will do something and some people go through with it completely, others just don't, and some just go halfway. I think we are going halfway and so are other counries and so until we go the full mile we cannot accomplish as much as we want to. Aother of interest to is that I think we are dealing to much with the world and not enough with our own country. Our government is supposed to take care of us first and then others. Why do they deal with poverty in Africa, and yes that is an issue, but not as much with it in the U.S? Why do we put so much money into hunger in India and not as much into hunger in the streets of Philly? Why do we put so much attention into AIDS in Ghana and not in the neighborhoods of NYC? I have been asking myself these questions and I think we all should. If a government's priority is its citizens then why does our money go out to the world instead of our own country? The government should address the same problems that are going on in our country because most of them are the same as the ones the world has. I see many hungry people when I walk through Philly so why don't we help them first instead of in Nicaragua? Instead of just jumping out and automatically helping the world we need to take a look inside our own country first and address our problems and then we can take care of the world. Doesn't that make sense?