NationStates Jolt Archive

All across the world we face poverty, I would like to know people's opinions are on this topic> Should the government help those in Poverty?

All across the world we face poverty, I would like to know people's opinions are on this topic> Should the government help those in Poverty?
Are you asserting that it is a person's fault for being born in a position where they do not have the resources to advance?

Are you asserting that it is a person's fault for being born in a position where they do not have the resources to advance?

Not at all, I am looking for opinions, I did not state anything about my opinion, although I beleive the government should take part in certain situations to aid those who are less fortunate. Although in some cases poverty IS the fault of the individual it is few.

All across the world we face poverty, I would like to know people's opinions are on this topic> Should the government help those in Poverty?
Yes, but only insofar as it means training the poor for employment and then helping those trained to find a job. After that, it's my considered opinion that the government has done its share. For those truly incapable of holding a job, the burden of support should fall first on the family, secondarily on the local community, and the federal or national government only as a last resort.

Yes, but only insofar as it means training the poor for employment and then helping those trained to find a job.

What if, per say, they were unable to get a job, for their entire future. Such as a person with a mental disability. Certain Mental disabilities make it difficult to cope with the very idea of work.

Yes, but only insofar as it means training the poor for employment and then helping those trained to find a job. After that, it's my considered opinion that the government has done its share. For those truly incapable of holding a job, the burden of support should fall first on the family, secondarily on the local community, and the federal or national government only as a last resort.
Why should the local community pay for someone, surely that is the remit of Government?

Why should the local community pay for someone, surely that is the remit of Government?
The individual does not exist as other than a member of a local community [ perhaps the subject of another thread? ]. It is part of the responsibility we have toward each other to deal with as many problems at the lowest possible level of government, which is the community. To do less shuffles responsibility onto a faceless, impersonal system in which the individual has no say and, as often as not, gets totally lost.

Why should the local community pay for someone, surely that is the remit of Government?


Its a matter of social responsibility, and morality. It is the duety of the community to aid those in need.

Sometimes poverty is the fault of the individual. Sometimes not. And it's always the government's job to protect the people, rich poor, straight gay, white black, ect. So yes, I think the government should help the poor, but under more strict conditions, like time limits for help, except in cases where the person cannot help themselves.

If the government does not help the people, then the government does not have any reason to exist, and should be overthrown.

History has shown this to be correct.

The individual does not exist as other than a member of a local community [ perhaps the subject of another thread? ]. It is part of the responsibility we have toward each other to deal with as many problems at the lowest possible level of government, which is the community. To do less shuffles responsibility onto a faceless, impersonal system in which the individual has no say and, as often as not, gets totally lost.
The local community shouldn't be paying out money (or providing any other form of support, unless in emergency situations) to individuals as money is not paid into the local community. Money is provided to the government (either at national or federal level depending upon where you live) through taxation and thusly it should be the governments position to provide each person with a minimum standard of living. Now, how that minimum standard is achieved I open to debate [perhaps another thread?].

If the government does not help the people, then the government does not have any reason to exist, and should be overthrown.

History has shown this to be correct.
I would ammend that to say that, for those who truly need help, the government must help if there is no help from family or community. For those who do not need help, the primary responsibility of government is to get the hell out of the way.

The local community shouldn't be paying out money (or providing any other form of support, unless in emergency situations) to individuals as money is not paid into the local community. Money is provided to the government (either at national or federal level depending upon where you live) through taxation and thusly it should be the governments position to provide each person with a minimum standard of living. Now, how that minimum standard is achieved I open to debate [perhaps another thread?].
How do you figure that the local community shouldn't be supporting those who need help? There are local governments, local carities, local organizations, etc. perfectly capable of all sorts of assistance.

Poverty is far too complex a subject to just attribute to one single factor.

It's partially an individuals fault, partially circumstance and all sorts of stuff.

How do you figure that the local community shouldn't be supporting those who need help? There are local governments, local carities, local organizations, etc. perfectly capable of all sorts of assistance.
I don't classify local community as local government, rather local community is the people around me.
Local charity organisations are different again. But my point is that it is the Governments responsibility to provide its people with a minimum standard of living, all be it subsistance, so that all people can at least be sure that they meet a minimum criteria for survival. After this point, it is down to the individual.

I don't classify local community as local government, rather local community is the people around me.
Local charity organisations are different again. But my point is that it is the Governments responsibility to provide its people with a minimum standard of living, all be it subsistance, so that all people can at least be sure that they meet a minimum criteria for survival. After this point, it is down to the individual.
My definition of "local community" includes local government and any other organization within the area.

Given the human propensity toward inertia, and the willingness to settle for subsistence, the only people toward whom the government has any responsibility for a "minimum standard of living" are those who definitely cannot provide for themselves and for whom family and/or local community are incapable of providing.

All across the world we face poverty, I would like to know people's opinions are on this topic> Should the government help those in Poverty?
argh!!! typed a nice long ranting reply and the fuckin browser decides to fuck up.................. :headbang: :headbang:

yes was my answer. ethically, morally. everybody deserves a basic standard of life, and help to achieve it, whether their unfortunate situation is their own fault or not. we have the ability to help people in poverty - why not help?
plus it is hard to get yourself out of poverty when employers do not (usually) consider applicants without a permament place of residence, and to get one you need a job - a catch 22.

True need should be addressed on a national level with standards to protect the taxpayers from fraud. The national government draws it's funds from the local communities anyway. Many times the better to do live in insulated communities while pockets of abject poverty lie outside their borders. Local organizations may play a role but to expect a poor person in a poor community to be helped by that community (read town, county, state, province, whaterever here) exclusively is a ridiculous abdication of the responsibility of the well to do members of society.

I don't classify local community as local government, rather local community is the people around me.
Local charity organisations are different again. But my point is that it is the Governments responsibility to provide its people with a minimum standard of living, all be it subsistance, so that all people can at least be sure that they meet a minimum criteria for survival. After this point, it is down to the individual.
I'd have to disagree, the job of the government is to protect our lives, liberty and property from being harmed by aggression from others (not passive inaction mind you.)

True need should be addressed on a national level with standards to protect the taxpayers from fraud. The national government draws it's funds from the local communities anyway. Many times the better to do live in insulated communities while pockets of abject poverty lie outside their borders. Local organizations may play a role but to expect a poor person in a poor community to be helped by that community (read town, county, state, province, whaterever here) exclusively is a ridiculous abdication of the responsibility of the well to do members of society.

Which is why I said, "the only people toward whom the government has any responsibility for a 'minimum standard of living' are those who definitely cannot provide for themselves and for whom family and/or local community are incapable of providing."

The national government draws its funds from the same well from which all government draws funds ... the taxpayer.

argh!!! typed a nice long ranting reply and the fuckin browser decides to fuck up.................. :headbang: :headbang:

yes was my answer. ethically, morally. everybody deserves a basic standard of life, and help to achieve it, whether their unfortunate situation is their own fault or not. we have the ability to help people in poverty - why not help?
plus it is hard to get yourself out of poverty when employers do not (usually) consider applicants without a permament place of residence, and to get one you need a job - a catch 22.

Isn't it a bastard, I hate it when that happens. :headbang:

Yes, the poverty cycle, I believe it's called.

My definition of "local community" includes local government and any other organization within the area.

Given the human propensity toward inertia, and the willingness to settle for subsistence, the only people toward whom the government has any responsibility for a "minimum standard of living" are those who definitely cannot provide for themselves and for whom family and/or local community are incapable of providing.
Perhaps it is the way in which that minimum standard of living is provided?
I agree that the person who is capable of working should have to work, but at the same time even said person should not be allowed to slip below a set line otherwise we begin to see the growth of the 'under-class'. This is (for the most part, but not solely) where most crimes at least start to take hold. As this line would, most likely, be set by government so it should be governmental responsibility to provide.
There should, of course, be set responsibilities for people receiving these benefits, unless of course they are incapable of performing said responsibilities hence them requiring assisstance. Say, you have 6 months receiving state benefit whilst you look for work. 3 months benefit whilst government training kicks in and subsequently you are employed by government to perform menial duties in order to receive benefit. If you don't show up to work, benefit is withheld. This would be advantageous as it would provide work as well as state provision for minimum standard of living. It would also encourage people to 'better themselves', no?

argh!!! typed a nice long ranting reply and the fuckin browser decides to fuck up.................. :headbang: :headbang:

yes was my answer. ethically, morally. everybody deserves a basic standard of life, and help to achieve it, whether their unfortunate situation is their own fault or not. we have the ability to help people in poverty - why not help?
plus it is hard to get yourself out of poverty when employers do not (usually) consider applicants without a permament place of residence, and to get one you need a job - a catch 22.
Legislating morality?

If the government does not help the people, then the government does not have any reason to exist, and should be overthrown.

History has shown this to be correct.

I applaud you on your wisdom.

Which is why I said, "the only people toward whom the government has any responsibility for a 'minimum standard of living' are those who definitely cannot provide for themselves and for whom family and/or local community are incapable of providing."

The national government draws its funds from the same well from which all government draws funds ... the taxpayer.
I agree with this.

My oppinion is that most of the time, it is the fault of the individual. Especially in the US. Anyone with average - slightly below average intelligence can succeed if they want to, and leave whatever hell hole they happen to be living in. One can argue that because of the conditions that they were born into, that they didn't have a chance. This is not always the case. The US (and plenty of other modernized countries) provides a free education. The problem is, too many kids decide to join gangs and/or get stoned instead of achieving anything in school. And guess what, it is still that individuals fault. With that said, most able bodied sane people have the ability to support themselves; leaving a very small class of citizen that actually needs the help. Everyone else, they made their bed, they can sleep in it.

Does this make me insensitive? Probobly. Such is the price of telling it like it is.

Perhaps it is the way in which that minimum standard of living is provided?
I agree that the person who is capable of working should have to work, but at the same time even said person should not be allowed to slip below a set line otherwise we begin to see the growth of the 'under-class'. This is (for the most part, but not solely) where most crimes at least start to take hold. As this line would, most likely, be set by government so it should be governmental responsibility to provide.
There should, of course, be set responsibilities for people receiving these benefits, unless of course they are incapable of performing said responsibilities hence them requiring assisstance. Say, you have 6 months receiving state benefit whilst you look for work. 3 months benefit whilst government training kicks in and subsequently you are employed by government to perform menial duties in order to receive benefit. If you don't show up to work, benefit is withheld. This would be advantageous as it would provide work as well as state provision for minimum standard of living. It would also encourage people to 'better themselves', no?
We need some statistics on some of this sort of thing.

The key is social and economic mobility based on ability and training. If there are systems in place for insuring people can get training and recieve economic assistance while being trained, then basic human nature will kick in as a positive factor. This seems to be implicit in your last few sentances. :)

My oppinion is that most of the time, it is the fault of the individual. Especially in the US. Anyone with average - slightly below average intelligence can succeed if they want to, and leave whatever hell hole they happen to be living in. One can argue that because of the conditions that they were born into, that they didn't have a chance. This is not always the case. The US (and plenty of other modernized countries) provides a free education. The problem is, too many kids decide to join gangs and/or get stoned instead of achieving anything in school. And guess what, it is still that individuals fault. With that said, most able bodied sane people have the ability to support themselves; leaving a very small class of citizen that actually needs the help. Everyone else, they made their bed, they can sleep in it.

Does this make me insensitive? Probobly. Such is the price of telling it like it is.
There is something to be said for not rescuing people from the consequences of their own behavior. However, people do change and become capable of making better decisions. The question then becomes, is there a mechanism for them to rejoin the working majority? All too often, past mistakes are held against the individual long after they no longer make the same mistakes.

An issue of major concern to me, as parent and grandparent, is what happens to the children of those who make serious life errors? Should the children bear the consequences of having a stupid parent? If not, whose responsibility is it to come to their rescue?

We need some statistics on some of this sort of thing.

Rawr, I've tried finding some sort of statistics, but it seems near impossible, I've tried linking poverty with crime rate, to show how it effects people, what it could make them resort to, but there are too many variables. :headbang:

i think most governments do what they can to poor people and families, and then theres the individual. i know that here in australia, there are a few people that seem kinda poor, and we have pretty decent social services and stuff like that. but even though they're poor, whatever money they have they seem to spend it on the wrong things. that annoys me. and then those people say that they live a hard life. a lot of people think that they can get through life without having to work hard for it initially. i guess thats when education and morals need to come in.

although i can understand that in some countries, governments can't do a lot. being filipino, i can see how hard people try to get ahead in life. but countries like the philippines simply does not have enough money in the government to govern 80 million people properly.

All across the world we face poverty, I would like to know people's opinions are on this topic> Should the government help those in Poverty?
I believe it is the governments job to provide edjucation and work placement for those less fourtunate than others. I also beleive that if one cannot Support oneself due to phisical and/or mental disabilities that he/she should be taken care of by his/her government. All one has to do is ask for help. Those who choose not to recieve aid are on there own.

I believe it is the governments job to provide edjucation and work placement for those less fourtunate than others. I also beleive that if one cannot Support oneself due to phisical and/or mental disabilities that he/she should be taken care of by his/her government. All one has to do is ask for help. Those who choose not to recieve aid are on there own.
This sounds very close to what we already have here in the US. Unfortunately, there are many who will take advantage of the system, which makes it hard on everyone.

I prefer to target the cause, rather than the symptoms. I find it hard to believe that your average professional beggar could hope to make more money by getting a job. Where's the motivation to get off the streets?

Yup! Socialism all the way...caps on income!

I believe that individuals should be in control of their own futures. Education is available, its the individuals choice whether or not to take advantage of it. Even if people are non-educated, there are still low level decent jobs that can be acquired that have room to move up and still make something of oneself, it just takes effort. I do not believe in social welfare except extreme cases such as mentally challenged individuals.

People always complain of the middle class white males who are given the magic key through life when as one of these myself I have gotten screwed more then many other people I know. We are not given free rides, we are expected to do well and are failures if we do not. I have to pay all my own way through college because my parents 'make to much money' according to the FASFA, and yet they never had an intention of helping me. I make my own money, pay my own way through college, and barely scraping through. Even without government support, education is available to those willing to work for it. Going in debt for college students is an investment, not a detriment. People often confuse lack of money for inability to get an education, or some civil injustice. I in fact think that they are simply looking for handouts and should receive none.

Which is why I said, "the only people toward whom the government has any responsibility for a 'minimum standard of living' are those who definitely cannot provide for themselves and for whom family and/or local community are incapable of providing."

The national government draws its funds from the same well from which all government draws funds ... the taxpayer.

Where we differ is that the national government is the great equalizer and therefore should be the first resort. Per capita wealth varies greatly from state to state and even more dramitically from locality to locality.

The PCI in Mississippi is $23,448 while Connectiicut $43,173. This is roughly 1.84:1.0 ratio that doesn't examine highest county v. lowest which would easily push the ratio well above 2:1.

The US trend to set standards on a national level but place the greatest burden for funding on the states only serves to protect the well to do while further impoverishing the poorer states.

My oppinion is that most of the time, it is the fault of the individual. Especially in the US. Anyone with average - slightly below average intelligence can succeed if they want to, and leave whatever hell hole they happen to be living in. One can argue that because of the conditions that they were born into, that they didn't have a chance. This is not always the case. The US (and plenty of other modernized countries) provides a free education. The problem is, too many kids decide to join gangs and/or get stoned instead of achieving anything in school. And guess what, it is still that individuals fault. With that said, most able bodied sane people have the ability to support themselves; leaving a very small class of citizen that actually needs the help. Everyone else, they made their bed, they can sleep in it.

Does this make me insensitive? Probobly. Such is the price of telling it like it is.

On paper that sounds eminently reasonable. In the real world it's not quite so clear cut. Let's start with an intelligent but irresponsible teenage mother. She presents the world with three children over a course of time. The government tells her to shove off, it's her own fault.

She missed out on her education so the best she can do is get a clerks job paying minimum wage. Not enough to pay rent let alone handle heat, electric, transportation let alone food. What is she to do? How are those children going to be nourished and educated?

If the situation is left alone by the state we can reasonably expect the mother will have to sink lower and enter into criminal activity to survive. The children will not be properly nourished so their physical and mental development will be compromised. Of the three, at least one will turn to criminal behavior. Let's say the other two go on to an average life.

We now have two avtive criminals. The costs to the locality and the state is much greater in dealing with the effects of their criminal behavior than it would have been to give the mother a hand up at the beginning of her compromise.

It is more intelligent to catch problems at their inception. Had she had the opportunity for completing her education and getting job training and childcare so she could work we all are better off for it.

[...] Even if people are non-educated, there are still low level decent jobs that can be acquired that have room to move up and still make something of oneself, it just takes effort. I do not believe in social welfare except extreme cases such as mentally challenged individuals.


That might well be for people up to a certain age. but what then? with a 'low level decent job' they might be able to get by until they are in their 60s, but what then?

Help them to better themselves(help themselves) and rise above poverty.. the govn't shouldn't be a "crutch".

Poverty in industrialized nations is laughable at best. Barring physical or mental disabilities *anyone* can make a proper life for themselves. If they can't then they deserve to be in poverty.