You wake up and have your coffee. You stop at Dunkin Donuts on your way to school. Grabbing a snack and going to class. You stop at the café and eat your lunch. One more coffee before you drives home. You cook your dinner and repeat the next day. There are six opportunities for food in this example. Many Americans, even children don’t get a single one because they can’t afford it. Many Americans can’t even afford to live in a home. Eighner and Singer have put a lot of thought into this problem and have created some well written literature on the subject. Both authors tackle the problem of poverty, while Singer is direct and extreme with A solution, Eighner is subtle with his views about solving poverty. Signer proposes a direct solution to poverty. He is so direct in his writing it almost feels like he is commanding you. He states in his essay, “Whatever money you‘re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (854). He thinks that to end poverty, all money you make that is not spent on food or essential materials is a waste of money and should instead be donated. This is an extreme solution, and signer implies it is an end-all solution, a cure to the disease of poverty. Eighner insists that to do your part in ending poverty, you should donate items to shelters and relief organizations. Eighner claims that, “some material things are white elephants that eat up the possessor’s substance” (364). Eighner is trying to say that many things we value and think we cannot live without are simply not needed. We could live without a TV or toaster even though the thought of it could make us cringe. Eighner stresses in his essay that it is very possible to live with no more than you actually need. Any excess should be donated. Eighner and Signer both touch on ways to end poverty however, they would not agree about how solve it. Eighner’s viewpoints almost have to be inferred...