You help starving babies through a child sponsorship program where $ goes to feed the child instead of to the gov't. Besides, we can't support our retired citizens (S.S.), our poor (food stamps and Medicare), and the world's poor without borrowing money.
So, to put it more practically, let's say a man has only enough money after essentials to help support his parents (who have given him money all his life), provide for essential needs for his poor nieces and nephews whose mom can't work, and to pay the fees on his debt. In order to do this and not borrow more money, he has to cut out all non-essentials like eating out and cable tv. However, he hears about some poor starving children down in Mexico. An organization whose trustworthiness is questionable convinces him to send money regularly promising it will help starving babies. In order to do this he has to continue to borrow more money from people that do not like him very much and cut back on helping his parents since there are really no more extras to cut. They can survive on rice and beans a few more nights a week and he doesn't consider that his debt payments will go up and make it increasingly hard to help his parents and nieces and nephews. If one day, he evaluated this and decided to stop helping the Mexican children, would you say he was wise or selfish?
I'm sure you can see the parallels.
