CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
12
Yes No
Debate Score:41
Arguments:26
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (14)
 
 No (9)

Debate Creator

jonathangoh(1724) pic



Should the government help the poor?

On first glance, your answer will probably be yes, as it should be the right thing to do. Or is it? Why exactly should the government be responsible for helping the poor? Why should they not help the poor?

Yes

Side Score: 29
VS.

No

Side Score: 12

Only if they are willing to help themselves first. If they are not willing to put forth the effort to improve their lot in life, why should anyone else?

Side: Yes
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
2 points

So the real question is, why do you immediately jump to that? Is it your opinion that most people who are being helped by the government are not actively trying to help themselves, and if so, why? After all, government information on welfare recipients shows that those who are able to work and don't but receive social welfare are in the serious minority.

So what makes you jump right to those abusing the system, rather than those who aren't?

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: No
0 points

Yeah,

Then the government should give them (poor people) more job opportunities instead.

Doing this means the government is helping them and the poor can only choose to help themselves or not by declining or accepting the government's offer.

#PoorPeopleLife

#Thank you for reading

Side: Yes

Let's ignore any and all moral or philosophical issues with it at the moment (I know, I've already lost a lot of people), and focus entirely on the utility of it.

When people are poor, they generally lack the ability to receive all the goods and services they need. In the case of Healthcare, that leads them to the ER where they receive emergency care on the public dime, which is incredibly inefficient from a cost benefit analysis for both the individual and the country. If it's education, then they end up with low-quality jobs that significantly decrease the chances of them changing their socio-economic situation. If it's food, they end up malnourished and often develop health issues (such as the obesity epidemic in this country).

I could go on, but all three of these actively cost our country a LOT of money. Some people advocate removing even the most basic ways in which we try to alleviate these, but it's time to think logically about what has historically happened when the poor and disenfranchised are pushed far enough. Eventually, people become desperate, and what people are desperate, they are more likely to turn to more radical measures as they see no other choices. That's just basic survival instinct, so let's go ahead and leave moral qualms with it behind for a second. This would lead to an increase in crime, which would of course cost our society even more money, and generally make this country less pleasant to live in for everyone.

Of course, there's another way. Again, outside of the morality of philosophy of it, let's consider some basic ideas: Without a sufficient education, one can not generally hold a well paying job. Without a well paying job, one generally falls into the problems I spoke of earlier. So, if the government were to, say, invest in the higher education of the poor (let's say an Associate's Degree, or a technical equivalent), then they'd be paying a somewhat-flat sum per person. This education would allow them to then receive a better job, which allows them to pay for their own goods and services (be it food, further education, medical costs, etc), which decreases their strain on the social safety net. This decreases the appeal of crime, as the better off people are, the less likely they are to turn to desperate measures. On top of the decreased crime and decreased social safety net burden, these people's higher paying jobs also lead to an increase in tax contribution.

Or you could say "fuck em" and watch our problems get worse.

Side: Yes
AlofRI(3177) Clarified
1 point

Well said, Sparticus. I might point out that the ISIL ranks are filled with the desperate who could not find any way to support themselves and their families, so they turned to the only "friends" they could find. A country that won't care for their desperate will soon find them their enemy!

Side: Yes
4 points

Why not, considering it's the Government trying to make all of us poor.

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: No
1 point

Of course the Government should help the poor.

This is one of the few things that, as a Libertarian, I think they SHOULD do.

Of course, there are stipulations to this.

People should always try to help themselves. To be self-sufficient. To do as much as they can for themselves and their families, without relying on Government intervention or assistance.

But some folks cannot do this. For a variety of reasons.

So as long as those reasons are truly legitimate and not simply borne out of sloth and laziness, or an Entitlement Mentality, than I am all in favor of our government assisting the truly needy.

Thanks!

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: No
2 points

Where has 22 trillion dollars gone ? What has tax dollars done to help the poor ?

http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

Side: No
AlofRI(3177) Disputed
1 point

Obviously, 22 Trillion dollars has "trickled up" (mostly) to our top 1%, the rest to "pork projects" and a smaller amount back to the people. When a small cadre at the top has the money to make laws that benefit themselves it's no wonder that almost 90% of the nations treasure "trickles" in a direction unintended.

Two more conservative SCOTUS judges and they'll own the country.

Side: Yes

Is there an obligation for the government to help the poor?

In my opinion, there is no need for the government to help the poor. Why shouldn't the poor help themselves and get up on their own?

Secondly, where is the government going to get this money from? A probable guess would be the taxpayer's money. So, the government is the medium for transferring this money from the rich to the poor. A.K.A Stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor. Redistribution of money. Money that the normal people have earned. These taxes should not go into the poor's pocket, if they didn't do anything to earn it. By helping the poor, the government is technically being unfair to the others.

Side: No
Stickers(1037) Disputed
3 points

Mother of god. I can't believe that the gov't is stealing from the rich to fund medical coverage for those 18 years of age and younger (Medicaid), financial support for the disabled and dependents of deceased breadwinners (Social Security), and to fund free/reduced meal prices at school for lower income public school students (Welfare) !!! They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps !!!

Side: Yes
2 points

It seems many of "his kind" believe charity begins at conception, and ends at birth!

Side: Yes
2 points

In my opinion, there is no need for the government to help the poor. Why shouldn't the poor help themselves and get up on their own?

Who says they have the ability to do so?

Secondly, where is the government going to get this money from?

Taxation, the way it gets most of its money.

A probable guess would be the taxpayer's money. So, the government is the medium for transferring this money from the rich to the poor.

Yes, as every government has done to some degree. Every government. Every single one that has ever existed on this planet has transferred money from one group to another in some way, shape, or form.

A.K.A Stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor.

Stealing: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Taxation isn't stealing or theft by its definition. Don't be hyperbolic.

Redistribution of money

Yes, just like roads, schools, medicare, military spending, and literally every form of government spending that has ever existed.

Money that the normal people have earned.

Wait, so anyone who receives any form of social services at any point of their life is immediately "abnormal"?

These taxes should not go into the poor's pocket, if they didn't do anything to earn it.

Who said they didn't do anything to earn it?

By helping the poor, the government is technically being unfair to the others.

There is no "technicality" about it, as "fairness" is inherently subjective.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

Tell me where 22 trillion dollars have gone and what it has done for the poor !

Side: No
AlofRI(3177) Disputed
1 point

Was there an obligation for Jesus to help the poor? The government IS the medium for "transferring" our money to wherever it is needed to benefit the country OR ourselves! That "piece of paper" called the Constitution orders that it be done. There are many countries that do not take care of their poor or sick countrymen or women or children, so, why don't you move there? You apparently don't like America unless we have people lying and dying in the streets. If you leave, please take your particular brand of Conservative Christianity with you.

Side: Yes
Darkyear(345) Disputed
1 point

Why shouldn't the poor help themselves and get up on their own?

They may not be able to

They may be suffering from an incident they can't immediately recover from, such as sudden foreclosure on house, loss of job, family emergency, medical emergency, release from prison, etc. Believe it or not, very, very few people choose to be poor.

Anthropologists and sociologists have demonstrated that due to numerous factors, poverty has a certain "gravity" that makes it harder to move up to middle class than for a middle class person to go to upper class. As a result, those in poverty, especially minorities have to work MUCH harder to move up than most other people.

Large amounts of poverty have been proven to increase crime throughout society.

Gangs and other organized crime groups tend to thrive in poor communities.

Large homeless populations add nothing to the economy.

If all the poor had more spending money, the economy would be much better because a) they are such a large group and b) unlike the rich, the poor rarely save money, they spend it as soon as they get it. If the uptick in the economy is strong and persistent, the rich would eventually make back the money they were taxed.

With more money, they are more likely to go to school, earn more money, pay higher taxes and send their children to school.

As the richest nation on earth, it is an embarrassment to have such vast inequality of wealth.

Its simply the right thing to do, for all of us.

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: No

Wow what a dumb debate. Shove it clown boy this is worse then the moist towelett debate

Side: No
1 point

Dupe

Side: Yes

Absolutely not. In the main the poor are the architects of their own plight, either through stupidity, laziness, lack of enterprise, mental or physical inadequacy. Regardless of the reason for their predicament the poor should be left to succumb to nature's process of ''natural selection'' whereby the weak and inferior perish so the strong and superior of the species may flourish and improve their kind, just as we see in all other categories of life on earth. To artificially support and keep alive nature's failures is a dangerous, burdensome and wasteful exercise.

Side: No
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
3 points

I'd ask you to substantiate your opinions with evidence, but that usually leads to a string of semi-coherent insults.

Care to buck the trend?

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: Yes