Seems to me that the sick, retired, unemployed, families and children should be protected if they are unable to support themselves. Shouldn't health, education, housing and nutrition be insured and underwritten by our government? Ultimately in the long-term doesn't it cost less to go this route; we would be healthier, more educated, and less desperate? By being sure people were taken care of wouldn't there be lower incidence of crime, and have smaller prison populations?
2007-02-11 12:42:36 · 4 answers · asked by stupidity_of_pride 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The government is more concerned about wasting money on useless things. The politicians have tons of money, entertainers have tons of money, but do you think the money would come out of their pockets.
No, it would come out of the richer working man's pockets and one thing that would happen would be that they would simply decide that since their hard earned dollars are being taken away from them they might as well work less.
Also, who is to say who of the poor people deserve the help if there isn't enough money to fund the social programs.
I am poor and I see first hand how most of the poor people are lazy and want everything handed to them. They get their foodstamp card and spend it on drugs and then cry that they have no money to feed their kids. Then they run to energy assistance for help because they wasted their money.
I am for helping the poor. I have needed help, but I see too many people abusing the system and the more they can get the more wasteful they become because they can just go get on one more program and waste another couple hundred dollars in the process.
I think if they want to help the poor, the best thing they could do is have Donald Trump types to help fund poor people and teach them toward running their own business then it is up to them to be successful or not.
2007-02-11 12:55:16 · answer #1 · answered by sapphire_630 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No... it isn't the government's job to be a nanny state. And, in fact, most of the social programs have to a great extent been failures. The "War on Poverty" has been no more successful than the "War on Drugs" . And in my observation there only benefit has been to employ a huge number of worthless bureaucrats.
2007-02-11 21:06:38 · answer #2 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, exactly.
But...people get mad, when rich people aren't allowed to make profits on a particular industry...capitalism is our new God in America. Sad, but true.
However, I am glad that people like you do exist, gives me hope for the future. Stay strong, you kind and logical soul!
2007-02-11 20:48:41 · answer #3 · answered by ♥austingirl♥ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The unfortunate thing is there are people who tend to abuse such programs. These people tend to spoil it for everyone.
2007-02-11 20:50:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋