The argument for Government sponsored welfare, to aid the poor and needy Options

[sadolakced acid]

Alright, so. Government sponsored welfare. government give jobs and food, money, etc. to people who are too poor, etc.

some say it'd be good

some say it's thier fault they're poor

some say leave it to religious institutes...

etc.

discuss.

[*disco infiltrator*]

In all fairness, those in third world countries are a hell of a lot worse off than anyone in this country, and they didn't get themselves into that situation themselves. Their government did, by not helping them.

There's a reason our country is the richest. It's because we DO help people, but not everyone in our country is going to be well-to-do. It's impossibile. There's going to be poor people, and I've seen people get themselves out of that situation, so others can too.

[sharpandcuddly]

In all fairness, those in third world countries are a hell of a lot worse off than anyone in this country, and they didn't get themselves into that situation themselves. Their government did, by not helping them.

There's a reason our country is the richest. It's because we DO help people, but not everyone in our country is going to be well-to-do. It's impossibile. There's going to be poor people, and I've seen people get themselves out of that situation, so others can too.

okay, um, our country is the richest?
excuse me, what are you smoking?
our country is the MOST in debt, definatly not the richest.
a dollar here is worth like 60 cent in Canada.

and also, you cant ALWAYS get off of it.
My momma cant walk on her own, cant use the bathroom on her own, and shes the one raising four people. No one will hire her with a decent enough paycheck, and if she does get a job, our government money gets cut off and we STILL go hungry. I I live off of ramen noodles and free school food, cause thats all we can afford. I wear my sisters handmedowns, I ride a bus to and from school, the only time I EVER get to go out shopping or see a movie or go somewhere is when someone else pays for me. not to mention, my momma is so kind that she takes in all the other kids whos parents are missing or drug addicts. how about your leg gets crushed into over 40 pieces, you have four kids to take care off, plus the neighboring kids with no families, on 300 dollars of food stamps? you cant even buy womanly products like pads with foodstamps!

[innovation]

okay, um, our country is the richest?
excuse me, what are you smoking?
our country is the MOST in debt, definatly not the richest.
a dollar here is worth like 60 cent in Canada.

Well, the U.S. is definitely one of the richest nations, according to income and living standards.

And yes, I believe that government-sponsored welfare is necessary, although it should probably be more proactive. I'm not so familiar with how welfare in this nation works (ahh *ashamed of my own ignorance*), but I think that the government should also invest in other institutions, such as job training, counseling, teen centers, educational programs, and alternative schools. In order to develop a comprehensive program, the government needs greater collaboration with other social institutions (i.e. schools and organizations). And no, I don't think that welfare should be transferred completely to faith-based organizations. Of course, these organizations are valuable, but there are many public institutions that should be involved, as well.

For developing nations, Sammi, 'tis true that their governments often cannot afford to aid their citizens with welfare. However, NGO and microcredit programs have proven effective in increasing self-sufficiency within these nations. Honestly, the progress made through microfinance organizations has been phenomenal. We need to expand these programs in developing nations, while addressing other issues, such as corruption, armed conflict, disease, geography, gender discrimination, etc., all of which contribute to poverty in some way.