Taking responsible steps to reduce poverty is not merely a moral imperative but an economic one.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Poverty must be reduced not only for reasons of moral and justice, but also of security.
You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money.
Poverty is unnecessary.
Poverty is an artificial, external imposition on a human being; it is not innate in a human being. And since it is external, it can be removed. It is just a question of doing it.
Poverty is restriction and as such, it is the greatest injustice you can perpetrate upon yourself.
I have seen that traditional approaches to charity and aid don't solve problems of poverty. In fact, too often they create dependence.
Poverty itself is not so bad as the poverty thought. It is the conviction that we are poor and must remain so that is fatal.
I believe that poverty is often the result of inappropriate behavior - out-of-wedlock births, dropping out of school, crime and drugs - which should not be rewarded. But often it isn't, and common decency requires that we take care of the least of these.
Forcing people to be generous isn't humanitarian, effective, compassionate or moral. Only acts that are truly voluntary for all concerned can be truly compassionate.
There's a lot of freedom in having nothing. You don't have responsibility. You have nobody to answer to. But I'd rather deal without the poverty.
No opposing quotes found.