Should the government give money to the poor?
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
No
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Decisions made by ancestors have heavily inflicted the present. Most Blacks would not be in the position they are in if it had not been for the way their black ancestors were treated in the past. The government owes it to their citizens to make up for what the government in the past did. As for other countries tough nuts. They are not citizens of the U.S we should not have to provide them anything. Side: Yes
2
points
if the government gave money to all the poor people in the world, then everyone would be rich and no one would starve. We could buy what we wanted and the economy would be fixed. all you people against welfare have no hearts and probably want all the blacks to die too. Side: Yes
The Government owes black family descendent's of slaves in compensation over 1 trillion dollars, this was a calculated some time ago, that giving the cost of labor around the times of slavery added up over 400+ hundred years the American Government owns black families with roots in slavery some major money. Oh and before you racist non black and uncle tom negro pieces shit counter my argument "with no we own them nothing", Yes The American Government does own black family slave descendent's money. Proof: how come the American Government payed the victims of families from WW2 (not even citizens) reparation including the Japanese for nuking the fuck out of them, we are so quick to pay other countries in times of war but not our own during times of slavery, why you may ask, well because America knew if they did not world trade would not happen with those counties, so America only payed reparation to victims outside our country only for there own greedy benefit. What the American Government fails to realize is America wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today if it wasn't for black slaves. The American Government OWNS BLACK SLAVE DESCENDENT'S OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Side: Yes
Blacks, Chinese and Native Americans all owed something be it land, money or even having the benefits of what they put into the creation of America in history instead of one shitty black history week or month or whatever it is, it should be recognised as just history not segregated. Back to the debate topic though, the old saying goes that a country can be judged by how well it treats its weakest citizens, a lot of those citizens are poor their government should help them, otherwise that country is no more civilised than those it looks down on as not being civilised but nothings going to happen, main reason most politicians even if they start with great ideals become so corrupt by the time they get to any position of power their only interested in lining their own pockets and will happily let the poor, aged and disabled to starve or freeze as long as they get to keep their multiple houses and millions whilst making even more money, leaving the job of trying to look after those that truly need help to other citizens, cunts Side: Yes
the old saying goes that a country can be judged by how well it treats its weakest citizens, a lot of those citizens are poor their government should help them That statement is bullshit because no matter how well you treat the poor, someone will come out and compare that person's wealth to Bill Gates to show they aren't being treated well enough. Side: No
Have you ever heard of the mass suicides in Japan at the end of WWII? We needed to end the war quickly, they simply were not going to give up. We really don't owe them anything, you're forgetting that we're not the people who enslaved blacks today, and the blacks today are not the ones who were enslaved. If anything, the blood is on the hands of the people of the past, not us. No one here was alive during that time. Also, the first slave owner in the US was black As for your "proof", I don't see any proof here, you haven't actually provided any reasons why we should, just examples of us giving other people who fought and declared war on us free money after defeating them so they wouldn't attack us again. Total red herring. Side: No
America didn't give reparations for bombing Japan, that's a ridiculous statement. America gave reparations because Japanese citizens of America were locked up in concentration camp. In order to do that the Japanese people lost their property that they already owned. America paid them back for what was done to those individuals. Side: No
1
point
Then the people who enslaved the Africans should pay reparations, not those who were not involved. Also, descendants of African-American Slave owners should pay reparations too, they were a part of it as much as any other slaver. What the American Government fails to realize is America wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today if it wasn't for black slaves. What are you talking about? A huge part of the abolitionist movement was made up of industrialists who knew that it was cheaper and more efficient, and humane, to pay someone a wage for work, rather than actually own labor as property. The slave states were NOT industrializing, while the northern states were. The institution of slavery decelerated America's economic progress. Jeeze. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
I think the government should get rid of money altogether. Distribution in small doses won't help as long as this ONE currency can be horded by individuals. If people worked for things they wanted to work for instead of money, and traded for things they wanted to trade for instead of money, they'd be better off. At least I think so... Most people would say that the world would become a lazy one, filled with people who felt they no longer needed to work for anything. I think they'd be wrong. Seeing as though nature has its own competition called the survival of the fittest, those who weren't willing to work for anything would die off, and you'd be left with those who could in fact find ways to live...because well, they're alive. lol Side: No
1
point
The problem with a labor/barter system is simple, and is exactly what money is intended to address. If I have X, and you want or need it, then you need to be able to provide me with something I want in exchange. If you don't have anything I want, and aren't skilled in any labor I can make use of, you're screwed- unless you can trade something you have for something I want with a third party. In the extreme, this could mean having to make dozens of trades just to get one thing you want. Money exists specifically to be a universal commodity to avoid this. Side: Yes
1
point
The government is incapable of "giving" money to the poor. They don't make money, they take it from others to distribute to the poor. That introduces two moral problems into the equation. 1) The moral standing to confiscate the wealth of others is undefined. IE what moral standing does the government have to remove people's property in this context? 2) The practical benefit of giving people money is unwarranted. We give nearly a trillion dollars a year in direct aid to those in low income areas, there has been no noticeable change in poverty rates in thirty years. So this policy is clearly ineffective. Further, since the money taken in problem one would normally be used as capital for further development we cause two more problems, we decrease the number of jobs available to the poor and increase the cost of goods they are purchasing due to the capital decrease. Side: No
nowadays welfare emerge on the hot issue. some people say the government should give money to poor. because even if they are poor, they are citizen. but I disagree that government has duty to their citizen. There are a few reasons why i opposite. First, it is not reasonable. Second, it is not efficient. First of all, the most important reason in support of my claim is that it interrupt the motivation of hard workers. most people feel a sense of accomplishment when they earn the money. they try to make much money. it became a impetus of society developing. if government give money to the poor, people who work hard don't wanna do their work. they feel dont need to work. becasue if they don't earn money , governmnet is going to suppose them. This phenomenon make society worse. Second, It is difficult to find out the poor. Usually many people decieve administration to avoid tax. Unless government discriminate the poor, it will loss not only budget but meaningful of welfare. also, some people misuse this system. Additionaly, they should pay for discriminator. it makes many expense. For these reason, i am in the opposit of debate Side: No
|
