Again, that's solving starvation, not poverty. Those might often go together, but aren't really identical. You could have all the money in the world, if there's

Again, that's solving starvation, not poverty. Those might often go together, but aren't really identical. You could have all the money in the world, if there's a omnipresent famine that wouldn't help you a lot. If the goalpost for poverty is not starving, than that's a friggin' terrible definition. If that's the end of one's aspirations, just making sure that other people don't croak from hunger, then this paints a sadder picture of humanity than my initial interpretation of the original quote. I'm not denying that things haven't improved for people in the US, but in what kind of morality system would we consider this the end of the line?