It is odd to me that with numbers such as these there are not major reform bills going through to curb this problem. We have government run departments such as OSHA telling companies where to store paint and how to revamp a mattress properly when reselling it yet we are not stopping this huge slap in the face to our justice system. People are openly breaking the law, American laws, and it drains our economy and then to make matters worse we spend more by incarcerating them here in the U.S. instead of sending them back to their home country or even worse have work prisons where they can work to earn back the money they wasted that once came from Joe the working man. There are a number of things that could happen that yes, would cost money to implement but they would not cost what the current cost is to educate, feed and care for the illegal immigrants. Amnesty is over rated and it is killing our country, economy and culture.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
| The worlds poor should not be prohibited from selling their organs. Doing so results in the deaths of patient in need of transplant and continued poverty for people who are willing to give. Although opponents of a legal organ trade argue that buying organs from the poor is simply exploitation, exchanging organs for money is not much different than working for a paycheck. Ultimately, the decision to sell body parts should be left up to each individual. Legalizing the organ trade can not only save the lives of dying patients, it can also improve the standard of living of thousands of others.
WRT 104 December 7, 2010 To Greedy to Give to the Needy (Singer Analysis) Americans are greedy when it comes to spending/ giving money away to strangers other than themselves or family members. Singer proposed a little solution to world poverty by trying to make us feel bad and guilty. Singer addresses the wealthy, upper-class citizens about how they spend their money on useless material goods when they should be more considerate of the unfortunate people. He gives examples to persuade the reader into letting him control our money and telling us that this is how we should give our money away on something that is more beneficial to others. According to the article, Singers wants America to join and take part in an organization that helps save the lives of young children.
1999) Although Singer has a great amount of followers, there are people who disagree with his beliefs and moral reasoning. One argument that an individual might have with him is that we should focus on helping the people in our own country. We have poverty stricken and starving people here in America as well. Nobody is helping us, so we must help our neighbors in this country. Giving large sums of our personal profits to other countries will hurt us in the long run, it may be morally rewarding, but financially it is not.
Children growing up in poverty face many disadvantages such as unhealthy levels of stress making it near impossible to successfully complete college, thus making it harder to escape their surroundings. The poverty rates in some European countries are much lower than in the United States because of programs they have put into place to help the poor and unlucky, leading one to think the government should once again re-declare the war on poverty. Krugman’s article not only shows percentages he also lets his readers know what the findings were from scientific studies. Living in the conditions of poverty is stressful for anyone, much less children. I see the effects that poverty has on many people every day, and always think one day that could be me.
In the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, Peter Singer is trying to convince the people of America to donate a large portion of their income to help prevent world hunger. He recommends they save the money they would have typically spent on extra or luxury goods, as they are not a necessity to life, and give it to a charity that aids in helping to end world starvation such as UNICEF or Oxfam America. Although Singer’s proposition sounds like a good idea in theory, I don’t believe it is a practical way that this issued can be solved. It would be very hard to find someone who is willing to give a large sum of their earned income to aid people so far away. Singer attempts to appeal to your inner moral being by comparing his idea to two different situations.
Americans wanted to save that very exceptional and desired “American Dream,” and the Depression was keeping thousands of Americans from doing that. So, did Americans change their values and dreams to end the Depression, or did they still want that sweet taste of their very own American Dream? Americans saw capitalism as a safe haven for this dream and with the end of the Depression, opportunities would come knocking. Roosevelt’s New Deal had attempted to save capitalism and essentially failed in the big picture, so was capitalism saving the American Dream, or was welfare state? Ultimately, Roosevelt changed the relationship between the capitalist market and the
When he sings, “I made a G today but you made it in a sleazy way. Sellin’ crack to the kids. I gotta get paid.” It shows what the unfortunate people have to do in order to survive. Even though people know it is the morally wrong and dangerous occupation to take up, they sell drugs to get by because there are no other opportunities. Some communities are so torn that legal economic opportunities to support families are nearly nonexistent.
He claims that there is not much of the American dream left and that “we’ve become a hapless, can’t-do society, and it’s frankly, embarrassing” (Herbert, 566). He blames the poor policies, decline of the educational system, and the costly wars we cannot afford for our country’s loss of the idolized perception we have of the American dream. He defines the American dream as jobs provided for all who want to work and provide salaries large enough to allow employees to have a decent standard of living. Herbert urges the idea that raising taxes will help the issue of inequality amongst Americas classes and will help us pay for the wars overseas. Robert H. Frank, author of “Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore”, supports Herbert’s beliefs.