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

[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.

[*mipadi*]

a dollar here is worth like 60 cent in Canada.

Ohter way around—$1.00 in the US is worth $1.37 in Canada; $1.00 in Canada is worth 73¢ in the US.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ Mmmyea..I believe the only currency worth more than the dollar is the Euro, and that's a pretty recent development.

[ComradeRed]

First, I'd like to point out that you guys have some interesting monetary theories. The nominal value of your currency doesn't matter--America would be just as rich if the dollar was worth 100 Euros as if it was worth 1/100th of a Euro. The value of money just depends on how much is in circulation--it doesn't measure the actual productivity of the economy. Think about it this way, a Mountain is the same height no matter if it is measured in meters or feet. Similarly, an economy is the same in productivity no matter if it is measured in currency with high or low nominal values.

Religious institutions shouldn't aid the poor simply because I don't see how its their place to help the people of our country, espacially with all of the different sects of Christianity out there.

But we should help the poor! Jesus said so!

The government owes it to its people to render aid. If you can "help" out families in Iraq, you can damn sure put food on the table of a man with 10 kids and who works a blue collar job.

I'm going to quote ex-Congressman Davy Crockett on this: "What is worse, it [taxes] presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other."

The reason that welfare isn't in the Constitution is because the Founding Fathers realized that the government had no place robbing Peter to pay Paul and that it only opened it up to a torrent of abuses, especially under an income tax, which creates deadweight loss (for every dollar that goes to the government, more than a dollar is taken from the economy since people work less as the income tax increases reducing productivity--think about it, if the income tax was 100%, would anyone work?)

But if we must help the poor, the way to do it is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, by which you pay a "negative" income tax if you make a low income. This is a good idea, because people still have an incentive to work.

Sharpandcuddly, if you can't afford food but you can afford Internet, there's a problem.

Brandon, WHY does the government have a job to aid the needy? The US Government was founded on the Constitution and on the principles of the Declaration of Independence--neither of these says or even remotely implies that the government should help the needy. It seems that "Government should provide charity" has become a mantra as of late, but when you think about it, it doesn't really have a mantra in law or even in morality--every cent the government gives to the someone is forcibly extracted from someone else.

If you're interested in the whole Crockett Speech that explains the immorality of welfare, it's at http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

[lavadrugs]

I feel that it's our goverment's job to helpthe needy. Relgious places don't have enough money to do it alone just thinking about a child starving in america the richest country on the earth should be enough to make u think again

[ComradeRed]

Why is it the business of an Indiana factory worker that a child in the LA ghetto is hungry? Do we have a legal obligation to make sure that no children go hungry in Iraq or Bangaldesh? If not, what makes the child in LA superior? And if so, why?

Our government was not made to help the needy; it was made to create a system in which the needy could help themselves. When the government gives to people, it takes just as much from other people, and then some.

[sharpandcuddly]

Sharpandcuddly, if you can't afford food but you can afford Internet, there's a problem.

I agree completely. My mother would rather have the internet so she can keep herself entertained than buy food for her kids. :3

[*disco infiltrator*]

You're a year younger than I am. Go babysit someone and get yourself some money if your mom's so insane. In a year, you can get a real job. Do something about it. Instead of sitting on the computer telling us about it, help yourself out.

I have a friend who's mom is really just...crazy. She has no idea what she's doing, no idea how to raise kids...If he wants to have any money for anything, or if he wants food, he has to work for it himself or borrow from others. That's the way it works.

Instead of complaining, do something to fix it.

[fameONE]

Brandon, WHY does the government have a job to aid the needy? The US Government was founded on the Constitution and on the principles of the Declaration of Independence--neither of these says or even remotely implies that the government should help the needy. It seems that "Government should provide charity" has become a mantra as of late, but when you think about it, it doesn't really have a mantra in law or even in morality--every cent the government gives to the someone is forcibly extracted from someone else.

The government really isn't obligated to do so. And if there were no welfare program in place, I'm sure people would find a way to put food on the table (legally or illegally). However, if the government can "aid" peoples of other countries, then they sure as hell can "aid" their own.