CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should government help the poor in the U.S.? If so, how?
I have to do a debate in my Microeconomics class on whether the government should help close the gap in inequality. I would like to see both sides of the argument to help improve my argument.
The government should help the poor by providing opportunities for them to better themselves. For example, educational assistance, job placement programs, etc.
The government should not, under any circumstance, offer free money. If you need money because you are down on your luck, you get a certain amount and you have to pay it back.
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for a lifetime.
If the government want to help the poor first it needs to address the problem. Some homeless people are stuck being homeless by not being able to afford to go to work or even think about acquiring a job because they have lost hope of ever improving their situation.
How do we change this?
What I would like to see is a temporary housing provided at no cost to the person who is going to school to improve their situation and working towards a new or acquiring a job.
How do we do this?
We build resource centers and man them with educators and offer those who live on the streets a real chance to go from being hopeless to working. We create jobs to man the centers and offer jobs to educators and also help those in the programs become a part of working to help others in the program by allowing them to do the same by becoming educators and program managers and assisting other themselves.
If you are going to spend money then spend it wisely. Giving a poor person a few thousands will improve their situation for a season but not long term.
If you desire to contribute to this ideal please feel free to call me. 540-450-4355 Joseph
The government helps out the rich, why should it not also help out the poor?
Do we remember the mantra, “Too big to Fail”?
The major financial institutions of the U.S. are so rich in assets that we can’t afford for them to be poor!
AIG
Goldman Sachs
Bank of America
Citigroup
GM
Chrysler
Blah
Blah
Blah
If our memories serve us correctly, we can remember that fateful September and October when the wheels of politics raced with lightning speed to pass legislation to bail out all of those ‘too big to fail’ institutions.
I think people always overlook the help these institutions received and the amount of money that was used to bail them out. I guess its always different between the rich and the poor.
Although I did not express it in my argument, do you find it curious that the bailouts of the institutions bailed-out the ultra-rich men and women whose riches are a result of those institutions?
When the government bails-out an institution we must quickly and publicly establish the names of the individuals who are consequently bailed-out!
A lot of poor people can blame their social and economical factors (I'm not saying it's an excuse but it DOES have an affect). Nobody wants to be poor and most of the time they're born poor and didn't have much of a chance.
These institutions however caused their own downfall. It was their irresponsibility that led to a global meltdown affecting millions all around. I'm not saying I wouldn't have bailed them out and its a tough decision to make but I would want to stick it in their face and make sure they remember what happened for the rest of their life.
I whole-heartedly agree with almost everything you stated. The only exception: "Well... hopefully we all learn from our mistakes."
It seems that we (poor) not only learn, but also pay for the mistakes of others. The rich on the other-hand have learned that we will pay for their mistakes! Yet,when the poor make a mistake it's the poor who lend a hand.
(No people are born this stupid, it must therefore be learned.)
I think it's difficult to judge the rich without some hypocrisy.
They are taxed a much higher percentage of their income (In UK anyway) - money more likely to be used for poorer people. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong but I know that being poor I want their (rich peoples) taxes higher and if I was rich I would want my (rich peoples) taxes lowered.
We're always looking over the other side of the fence.
I don't see the gratitude from the rich. Nor do I see them ackowledging it was the poor who bailed them out. That is the least they could do.
I agree with you 100%. To be rich - there has to be poor. Even my lifestyle and income in UK here comes as as result of some poor people in China, India and Africa. The whole economy is based on the poverty of others.
I could be an expensive, celebrity hairdresser who charges outrageous prices for a hair'cut'. I am making money directly from the rich.
Indirectly the money has gone through the hands of the poor but I think this answer will suffice.
yeah your right on that ..i just checked my points ,..only because i do actually agree with what your saying on this, i will put your point back up. ok....dont take it as a pity point ,its not ....
I pretty much agree with Joe. Helping people help themselves is great.
But I also think government should give handouts to those who can't work due to disability, old age, etc.
I would also add that government should help pay for health care for those who can't afford it. Leaving human beings to die from diseases that could be treated relatively easily is just sick.
Other than those exceptions, I would say handouts are a bad thing because it lessens the need for people to be responsible for their actions and discourages them from contributing to society.
There needs to be job placement, education assistance but they still need to be fed for the time being. However, there needs to be very strict guidelines on when and who that money is given to. If someone cannot find work and is in job placement and has interviews etc, there is nothing wrong with helping them through the rough times.
I also believe people who are earning but do not quite earn enough to raise their families should be helped out. After all they are hard working citizens.
cut the military budget by $650 billion and use that money to fund welfare, and healthcare. also cut the homeland security budget in half and use that money to build govt housing.
This is a radical argument but using logic: if putting taxes on the rich decreases economic growth, would putting taxes on the poor or making being poor a crime drive the poor out of poverty?
a government of the people for the people by the people. government assistance programs such as food stamps. housing training for employment same as we always have done but use common sense big business gets plenty of help and they are not even a person.
What I'm actually saying is that it's okay if they use their own money, just not mine.
as for your policy on picking and choosing:
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson
obviously we must fund things like the military and police force, because we can't regulate who gets treated by that. but, we can regulate smaller things, like charity (welfare). So even so, a welfare policy can give people choice on what they want their tax dollars to go to.
"What I'm actually saying is that it's okay if they use their own money, just not mine"
...which you're simply not allowed to do, period.
"obviously we must fund things like the military and police force, because we can't regulate who gets treated by that."
Hey, if I had my choice, which I don't...just like you don't, I wouldn't fund the "defense" budget one bit, since it's waaaay too big IMHO. That's NOT the way our system works though!
I mean government officials. The politicians. If they want to give welfare to poor people, they can do it out of their own pockets. Just not with tax dollars (which is partly mine).
Holy shit...
as for the other thing, it has more to do with the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. There are practical things like defense which the government is supposed to give us and then there are things that only a few benefit from, like welfare, which is, according to Thomas Jefferson, tyrannical.
But my main view point is that politicians can help the poor all they want, just not with my money (tax dollars). They can start a charity or something, but not FORCE me to give my money to others. It's "tyrannical".
"The politicians. If they want to give welfare to poor people, they can do it out of their own pockets. Just not with tax dollars (which is partly mine)."
Says who...you?? Please, we live in a representative democracy or a republic as you Right-wingers like to refer to it, and we do NOT get to decide how all of our tax dollars are spent, period!
"There are practical things like defense which the government is supposed to give us and then there are things that only a few benefit from, like welfare, which is, according to Thomas Jefferson, tyrannical."
Jefferson never said that "welfare was tyrannical", moron. Give it up...
2. The question is should they? I believe they shouldn't. Is your argument that "because they do, they should"? If not, than why do you attack my view points by saying "you don't get to choose". That isn't the question.
3. The fact that welfare is implemented by the government would upset Jefferson. Welfare is obviously against the beliefs of some, and those some STILL have to pay for it. Jefferson said that if someone had to pay for furnishings that they didn't believe in, that is tyrannical. Since welfare is a government enacted program that benefits few, it is not seen as a Civil NECESSITY.
Oh yea, you're an "Independent"...with a Nazi icon over a gay pride flag...please...
"I believe they shouldn't."
Of course you don't, since you're simply greedy & selfish, period.
"why do you attack my view points by saying 'you don't get to choose'."
Because that's the REAL issue here, moron! In our system of govt., like it or not, we do NOT get to directly choose how ANY of our tax dollars is used, period!
"The fact that welfare is implemented by the government would upset Jefferson"
...in your own, wild imagination that is.
"Since welfare is a government enacted program that benefits few, it is not seen as a Civil NECESSITY"
...again, in your own biased opinion. The reality is that if some form of welfare didn't exist, then there would be hundreds of thousands of people with absolutely no way to readily support themselves without having to resort to dangerous things, like turn to crime, which effects everyone...either directly or indirectly. That's why some form of welfare is in the public's best interest.
Now, you'll never agree to any of the above, but that won't change the reality of the way things really are. So ramble on wing-nut...I'm DONE wasting my time educating your sorry ass...
1. Wait... you base my political beliefs on an avatar that is meant to be a joke? holy shit...
2. I give to charity... so i can't be greedy and selfish.
3. But I'm saying they SHOULDN'T!!! Just how drugs SHOULDN'T be illegal or gay marriage SHOULDN'T be illegal. What, just because they make something a certain way we should just accept it? What an interesting argument.
4. Unless you can provide evidence that Jefferson would promote the welfare program, I've given a good argument to say otherwise. Please, provide some Jefferson beliefs that would refute my statements (which were Jefferson quotes, interesting).
5. Hundreds of thousands of people in America are on welfare? And what you're saying is that welfare deters crime? Holy shit, if only you had some EVIDENCE to support these claims, then you may have something going here.
Otherwise, your entire argument was either Ad Hominem or just unsupported claims.
1. Try & run away from all the Right-wing nonsense that you've obviously spouted in this & many other threads. It's not going to work!
"I give to charity... so i can't be greedy and selfish."
LOL...your tax dollars do a lot of the same things that your charity dollars do yanno.
"What, just because they make something a certain way we should just accept it?"
Look, once again, you & many others on the Right-wing would love to change the way that our system works so that only the things that you personally believe in can get "your tax dollars". For the last time, that's NOT how systems of taxation have EVER worked. Tax dollars are pooled together to do the things that our elected representatives feel is in the public good. If you don't like their decisions, then vote them out. That's our fundamental system of govt., and it's NOT going to change to fit your wild imagination.
"Unless you can provide evidence that Jefferson would promote the welfare program"
LOL...it's up to ME to prove that Jefferson was opposed to a welfare system that post-dates him by many, many, many decades?? Look, moron, you trying to claim that one of the Founders is on your side without ANY evidence to support your claims is YOUR problem, not mine!!
"Hundreds of thousands of people in America are on welfare?"
There were 5.5 million people on welfare by the end of 2000.
1. Once again, no examples or anything, just continue to call me a right-winger. Okay, I'll play by your logic. from now on, I'll refer to you as a Nazi.
2. Listen up Nazi, I believe that men should give to charity if they CHOOSE to. I'm pro-choice. If someone does not wish to help the poor, it's his fuckin' right. He makes his money and chooses who should get it, whether it be retailers or the poor. I choose to give a hefty sum to charity, but that's MY choice, not that of a Fascist government.
3. This isn't a discussion on how we should vote. The debate is on what the government SHOULD be doing. I believe they SHOULDN'T be using our tax dollars to help a select few. If your argument is "lol, the government makes decisions, not you" than you shouldn't be in this debate. It's about what policies the government SHOULD do, and I think welfare is NOT one of them.
4. I provided evidence using reason and matching of Thomas Jefferson wanted. You didn't even refute anything... you just said it's part of my imagination. Okay, I dreamed up those quotes and Jefferson's Libertarian policy.
5. I appreciate the welfare numbers, now I know how many freeloaders exactly their are (although, I would have preferred it sooner).
As for your crime rate chart, you failed to mention that these crimes included VIOLENT crimes. It seems that your correlation is flawed for a few reasons.
a. You failed to show any other decades...
b. You failed to mention that they included sexual assault and rape in the statistic
c. You failed to say that this is the amount of crimes REPORTED to police officers. This is a statistic on citizen cooperation... FAIL.
Here's a better crime rate comparison, comrade (I know you Nazi Communists like the term comrade)
This is data on the crime rate over that past few decades. Notice that it goes up in the late 70s and into the 80s, but actually goes down drastically in the 90s and 00s. While there are more crimes going on (because of more people), the percentage is going down. This means, if we had the same people back then as we do now, we would have less crimes. But crime rates are DOWN. And, of course, before LBJ (king of welfare) crime was lower as well. It's like a bellshape... lulz.
correlation does not prove causation, of course, but if you want to make an argument about the comparison between crime rate and welfare... well, statistics will only show that more welfare equals more crime. Less welfare equals less crime. So if we eliminated welfare completely... by your standards, crime would be at an all time low. Damn Nazi boy, good thing you brought this up in the first place. Now I have a new argument "More welfare=more crime."
Riiiight...because I spout all kinds of Nazi propaganda on this website...not...what an idiot & a liar you really are...sheesh...
"If someone does not wish to help the poor, it's his fuckin' right."
Not through taxes it isn't...and 'round & 'round we go.
"not that of a Fascist government."
We don't have a fascist govt., idiot.
"This isn't a discussion on how we should vote."
This is a discussion on how our system of govt. works...one that you don't want to participate in or acknowledge, which is YOUR problem, not mine.
"I provided evidence using reason and matching of Thomas Jefferson wanted."
No, you meshed your OPINION onto Jefferson and made believe that you were in agreement with him, period.
"As for your crime rate chart, you failed to mention that these crimes included VIOLENT crimes"
...which doesn't matter at all. You don't think that crimes for monetary value ever turn violent?? Well, you've never been in a liquor store holdup, like some of my friends were when we were all much younger.
"You failed to show any other decades"
...which doesn't matter, since I know when welfare reform was...it was in the mid-1990s.
"You failed to mention that they included sexual assault and rape in the statistic"
Never heard of those types of crimes where the perpetrator took things of value as well?? What a surprise...
"You failed to say that this is the amount of crimes REPORTED to police officers."
Riiiight, because all (or even most of) the crimes that are reported to the police are bogus...not...learn some logic you fool...
"I know you Nazi Communists like the term comrade"
LMAO! Fascists & communists are at the opposite end of the world political spectrum, moron. You just showed how much you know about politics & history...absolutely, positively NOTHING!
"But crime rates are DOWN."
Gee whiz, and your "evidence" (with no reports on the total amount of crime BTW) are for "Number of offenses reported" AND include "rape"...lol...what an idiot you really are.
"And, of course, before LBJ (king of welfare) crime was lower as well."
Baloney.
"correlation does not prove causation, of course, but if you want to make an argument about the comparison between crime rate and welfare... well, statistics will only show that more welfare equals more crime. Less welfare equals less crime."
Nice job at contradicting yourself all in the same phrase...LMAO! Take a course in logic kiddo, then come back another time...because we're DONE here.
1. god you don't fuckin' get it. It's like talking to a 16 year old girl.
2. "not through taxes it isn't". Really? Rights vs. Legislation. You do realize that there are plenty of laws out there that violate rights... right?
3. It is fascist to censor speech and seize property. Our government isn't completely fascist (we do have a democracy) but considering the way our system is set up, there are PLENTY of fascist elements. And, once again, you really don't get it... fuckin' Nazi.
4. Once again, nothing you said disputed my claims on Jefferson.
5. HOLY SHIT! I provided stats comparing BEFORE welfare reform to AFTER welfare reform. Also, presenting the status of crime BEFORE welfare. All showing that crime RATE (because the amount of people will change the amount of crimes committed) was at it's HIGHEST when welfare was at its highest. You completely ignored the stats and decided to spout bullshit as if you didn't even read ANYTHING that those statistic presented. Fuck, why am I wasting my time with a Nazi like you? Maybe cause it's fun... in a way.
