Janesss

I think that wealthy nations should be required to share their wealth
with poorer nations. But their helping should only stop at providing such
things as food and education because of the three following reasons.
Firstly, citizens of both wealthy nations and poorer nations are human
beings. Therefore, we can not look at, hear of, or talk about people who lack
food, education, etc... without compassion and sympathy. Sharing wealth
with poorer nations is not only a good deed but is also a task .
Secondly, many nations are very very poor. Famine, diseases, crime and

illiteracy are killing the citizens of these countries. In the contrary, many
nations are too rich. If there are no actions taken, this inequality will increase
dramatically. Poor countries will become more and more poorer while rich
countries will become more and more richer. As a result, the poorest countries
will become slaves of the richest countries. So, sharing wealth is an useful way
to prevent people from that bad future.
Thirdly, although sharing wealth with poorer nations is very

necessary but this help should only stop at providing such things as food,
medicine and education. Or else, poor nations may become dependent on the
aid. They may lose enthusiasm to build their countries by themselves.
Moreover, rich nations can take advantage of sharing wealth to interfere with
the governance of poor nations’. This can’t be considered a humane action and
should be prevented.
In my opinion, sharing wealth with poorer nations has both a bad side
and a good side. What we have to do is avoiding its bad side
and practicing its good side.
People have different views about how governments should measure

their countries’ progress. While economic progress is of course essential, I
agree with those who believe that other measures of progress are just as
important.
There are three key reasons why economic growth is seen as a
fundamental goal for countries. Firstly, a healthy economy results in job
creation, a high level of employment, and better salaries for all citizens.
Secondly, economic progress ensures that more money is available for
governments to spend on infrastructure and public services. For example, a
government with higher revenues can invest in the country's transport
network, its education system and its hospitals. Finally, a strong economy can
help a country’s standing on the global stage, in terms of its political influence
and trading power.
However, I would argue that various other forms of progress are just as
significant as the economic factors mentioned above. In particular, we should
consider the area of social justice, human rights, equality and democracy
itself. For example, the treatment of minority groups is often seen as a
reflection of the moral standards and level of development of a society.
Perhaps another key consideration when judging the progress of a modern
country should be how well that country protects the natural environment,
and whether it is moving towards environmental sustainability. Alternatively,
the success of a nation could be measured by looking at the health, well-being
and happiness of its residents.
In conclusion, the economy is obviously a key marker of a country’s
success, but social, environmental and health criteria are equally significant.
The Philippine government takes place in an organized framework of a

presidential, representative, and democratic republic whereby the president is
both the head of state and the head of government. This system revolves
around three separate and sovereign yet interdependent branches: the
legislative branch (the law-making body), the executive branch (the law-
enforcing body), and the judicial branch (the law-interpreting body).
Executive power is exercised by the government under the leadership of the
president. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two-
chamber congress—the Senate (the upper chamber) and the House of
Representatives (the lower chamber). Judicial power is vested in the courts
with the Supreme Court of the Philippines as the highest judicial body.
PDAF, or what we call pork barrel seems to brings clamorous noise in

the world of politics and public service. This an allotment of funds to
particular government officials to be used for various projects in the service of
he Filipinos.
The pork barrel issue has heightened the awareness of people as to
where the budgets went and how these huge amount of monetary funds were
managed by government officials. Scams and profiteering were discovered
and leaded by particular corrupt people like Janet Lim Napoles, Jinggoy
Estrada, and Bong Revilla Jr. who were subjected to imprisonment later on
and underwent court hearings to validate their pleas and clarify evidences of
the said conspiracy. Meanwhile, pork barrels were originally meant to be
beneficial:
 to fund small scale community projects and infrastructures

 to support NGO's
 to assist in financial aids primarily to local governments
Pork barrels scams is indeed a struggle that our government should

address urgently.

Janesss

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Janesss

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Janesss

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I think that wealthy nations should be required to share their wealth

Secondly, many nations are very very poor. Famine, diseases, crime and

Thirdly, although sharing wealth with poorer nations is very

People have different views about how governments should measure

The Philippine government takes place in an organized framework of a

PDAF, or what we call pork barrel seems to brings clamorous noise in

 to fund small scale community projects and infrastructures

Pork barrels scams is indeed a struggle that our government should

You might also like