|
|
Post by paigedueck on Sept 27, 2015 16:42:39 GMT -8
I agree with Sachi when she says that "money is a way of giving that can end up harming the person further, and has no guaranteed results that it will be put to good use." Money can be used for drugs and alcohol or for actual necessities; the receiver of the money can decide which they would rather have. Money gives too much freedom to the receiver which is why we should keep promoting our local organizations that help people in poverty. The organizations is a way for people in poverty to get the necessities that will actually benefit them so they don't keep messing up their lives with drugs and alcohol. Organizations that already spent their money on basic needs for the poor is a more promising way to help those in poverty than handing them plain money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maddie Barrios on Sept 27, 2015 17:40:53 GMT -8
I agree with Paige, in that "The only way to actually help the poor is to 'break the walls down' that separate the poor from the luckier people... and we can do that by promoting the aiding organizations we already have." Giving money directly to the poor won't solve all their issues and won't give them shelter or job stability, but giving money to organizations "such as second harvest food bank or project homeless connect" can. By giving to charities instead of directly to the poor, you can raise people out of poverty and eventually, because of this shift, there will no longer be an "us and them" mentality and the walls will have been broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by tanishababic on Sept 27, 2015 17:54:04 GMT -8
I think that money directly to the homeless may help but it won't solve the entire problem; the homeless may be unreliable to use that money well (not all), and instead of some food or clothes, they'd spend it on drugs. Giving money to charities and other organizations, like Paige said, would probably be the best way to aide the homeless since the people in charge of the distribution of help would know best how to help them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deven F. on Sept 27, 2015 18:14:33 GMT -8
I don't believe the system of merely giving cash donations to the poor is going to help lift them out of poverty in the long run. What would be best is for there to be a welfare system in which the entire community works together to improve the economic situation of the less-wealthy. Said community could work on ensuring for there to be available jobs for people. My point is, education about the problems and causes of poverty would help those in it much more than simple donations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deven F. on Sept 27, 2015 18:20:43 GMT -8
I agree when Paige says how it is better to donate to charities who can better aid the poor, however, I wonder if this will be effective in improving their situation in the long run. These charities will most likely waste everyone's time and money just giving services to the poor who don't show any signs of wanting to improve their own condition. Instead, there should be ways to give the poor incentives to get a job and improve their economic status.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucas Junod on Sept 27, 2015 19:01:39 GMT -8
Should we continue to give money directly to the poor (ie: giving money to panhandlers with signs asking for cash)? Should we do something else instead?
-In my opinion, i believe that giving money directly to the panhandlers is an erroneous answer. Although it does help their short term needs, it does not help them in the long run. A study has shown that typical begging can make between $600 - $1,500/month. But since panhandlers often have no way of saving money, it motivates them to spend most of their daily earnings quickly. This creates an addiction or impulse to spend their cash on short term relief, rather than their long term needs. Instead of saving for housing, food, rent, or medical care, they are wasting their "pity" money on alcohol or other substances. What we can do instead is to give our money to organizations that can guarantee the money is being used accordingly and is not being abused. Organizations can obviously do more for the needy than we can with the change in our back pocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joey Murrer on Sept 27, 2015 19:45:54 GMT -8
I do not think that we should give money directly to the poor. Rather, there should be organizations and incorporations that support the homeless or those in poverty by supplying food, shelter, and basic necessities. When you give money directly to homeless people, you never know where it could go. That is the biggest risk. Even though the majority of them will actually go and buy food or attempt to buy necessities, this does not guarantee that they will not waste the money on alcohol or any other substance. Or even gambling or any useless waste of money. Also sometimes, those panhandlers may not even be poor and it will just be an overall waste of money. The reality is that instead of standing on a corner, the homeless people should be attempting to go out and find jobs so they have some financial stability. It is not fair to ask a citizen, who makes his own money and pay his own taxes, to pay even more money to an untrusted person.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristaspurlock on Sept 27, 2015 19:46:39 GMT -8
I think giving to the poor is always a good thing, but you have to be careful with how you give to them. For example, it's not the best idea to just give cash money to homeless people. They might not use it for food or necessities but for drugs. It would be smarter to go buy them a sandwich, help them get job applications, or lead them to the nearest homeless shelter. Another aspect is when you support organizations, whether here in America or across the world. It's fine to just give money and assume it solves all the problems. But a better way to donate is to donate real supplies, whether it's canned goods, basketballs for orphans, or chickens and sheep. I think we should continue to donate directly to the poor, just be smarter about it. There's more ways to help besides throwing your money at those less fortunate.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilyf on Sept 27, 2015 19:47:54 GMT -8
In my opinion I do not think that we should directly donate money to those who are less fortunate. We are unaware of their current situation and to what we are donating to. For all we know they can be spending money on things that will dig them further into their poverty. For example, if we were to donate money to an addict or alcoholic, they would most likely spend the donations to feed their habits, furthering their addiction. While we do not know this for certain, it is quite possible. It is spending donations on these detrimental things that will cause them to continue to circle in the cycle of poverty. They are just digging themselves further into a hole that becomes harder and harder to get out of.
If we donate to them indirectly, it is much more likely that they will use these donations to remove themselves from the cycle of poverty. Instead of funding panhandlers, we should donate to homeless shelters and organizations devoted to helping those in need. This way those who would like to take advantage of the funds can, but those who do not want to do not have to. The money could be used to provide food and shelter for those who need and want it. It can also be used to help those who are in need and are looking for a job. By donating indirectly, we will be furthering those in poverty, while if we give money directly to panhandlers, we might be digging them deeper into the whole that they are in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darrien L on Sept 27, 2015 19:49:37 GMT -8
Giving money directly to those on the streets does not do much for anybody. Whether they buy their next meal with the money, or buy drugs and/or alcohol, it doesn't make a difference. The money that they get for a day's worth of begging is only enough to get by. Giving them pocket change does not get them out of the cycle they are in. To "panhandlers" they see it as if I beg today, I'll get enough to make it to tomorrow so I can do the same thing tomorrow. Instead of giving them pocket change, people should volunteer at places like homeless shelters or soup kitchens which is has a much bigger impact than giving a few dollars here or there. I think that donating to organizations is more beneficial than giving a few dollars for someone sitting on the street.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joey Murrer on Sept 27, 2015 19:52:10 GMT -8
I agree with Sachi saying "money is a way of giving that can end up harming the person further, and has no guaranteed results that it will be put to good use". Like Lucas said, there is no real way for homeless people to save their money, and therefore they will develop impulse spending habits. This does not in any way benefit the homeless. It does not guarantee food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, or anything else. Once again, you never know what the money is really being spent on. I also agree with Paige that the best way to counter this is to further develop organizations that work specifically to give homeless people the necessities, ensuring that the money you donate is going to an actual use, rather than alcohol or drugs. In conclusion, giving money directly to homeless people is not a solution. They obviously had financial issues to become homeless in the first place, it doesn't seem very logical to just trust them with money. With organizations where we can donate and make sure that the homeless people are getting what they are needing, it will guarantee more food, clothes and basic necessities being given out to those in need.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilyf on Sept 27, 2015 19:54:13 GMT -8
I agree with Joey that it can be risky to donate directly to panhandlers, being that you are unaware of where the funds are going. We are also unaware of the state of the panhandlers, for all we know they might not be poor. It is the uncertainty and risk that comes with donating directly that makes it the inferior option. As Joey said, we should be more focussed on donating to organizations and corporations where we are certain that are money will be well spent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darrien L on Sept 27, 2015 19:55:16 GMT -8
I think it was a strong point that Maddie made when she said that giving spare change requires "minimal amounts of effort and provides minimal results". It is definitely true that giving spare change is the easy and short term way of helping those in need. Instead, we should put our money toward big organizations that actually make a long term difference in these people's lives and not only give them their next meal, but helps them get back on their feet and possibly brighten their futures.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristaspurlock on Sept 27, 2015 19:55:28 GMT -8
I agree with Lucas- organizations can do more for poorer people than just an average person walking down the street. I think the real issue here is that, like the video said, there is a separation between the people getting by and those on the street. For those that are more well off, they won't understand a homeless person's situation or what their story is. We need to make better connections and try harder to help people out. Organizations are already doing this, and by supporting them they can have more resources to meet all the needs of the poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joey Murrer on Sept 27, 2015 19:57:03 GMT -8
I agree with Darian that "Giving them pocket change does not get them out of the cycle they are in". If we just keep feeding the homeless people small amounts of money, there will be no progression. The whole point is to try and get those who are in poverty, out. Better courses of actions such as volunteering or donating to organizations would further the attempts to eliminate poverty.
|
|
