|
Post by fionalokey on Jan 14, 2016 21:02:37 GMT
Individuals living near the poverty line should not be expected to rise in the economic ranks on their own. As a society, we are only as strong as our weakest link, and the incentive to close the wealth gap and boost people out of poverty is prevalent. The debate as to who would receive benefits and money from the government is utilized by those who believe that it is nearly impossible to fix the issue of poverty; however, the government can support people in ways other than just giving them checks. The government can enact programs to provide resources for schools and communities in order to provide more resources to its citizens. With the addition of resources, people will be more educated and have the desire to put their resources and knowledge out in the work force. While there will always be unequal opportunities between the rich and poor, boosting up the lower class and providing them with more ample opportunities will better our society as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by laurencox on Jan 15, 2016 0:30:44 GMT
I strongly agree with your overall point; however, I also believe that welfare is an essential part of government assistance to the poor. Welfare often allows people to finish their education or receive training for a job without having to simultaneously work at least one job in order to pay their bills and it can act as a "safety net" to keep people off of the streets while they try to find employment. People cannot comfortably live off of welfare, which is often claimed, so it does not take away from their motivation to find work, but simply allows them the opportunity to find a job without having to stress over bills. Also, many people on welfare are ill (or caretakers/mothers of the ill) and are therefore unable to work, making it our responsibility as a (hopefully) compassionate society to keep them safe. There are many other situations as well in which the impoverished need assistance and it falls on the government to protect and care for its citizens.
|
|
|
Post by erikroise on Jan 15, 2016 0:37:36 GMT
I agree. Most of the time, government assistance of the poor should not come by way of direct funding. Through direct funding, the government is forcing temporary equality without regard for the ability of the poor, who they are trying to support, to sustain a positive social position. It is more important for the government to support education and job growth. The availability of education and jobs can give those in poverty the opportunity to advance their own social position and acquire a sustainable income with which they can support themselves for the rest of their lives. This reminds me of the saying, "if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you give a man a fishing pole, he'll eat for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
Post by jvollrath on Jan 15, 2016 1:23:48 GMT
I think it important to mention that our society today actually does not seem to be "as strong as our weakest link". That may be the case with communism (where the idea is that everyone is equal), however in our capitalist society, the upper class can be, and usually is majorly unaffected by the status of the lower class. The wealthy do of course, give some tax money or donation money, but that doesn't make them 'as weak as the poor', or on their same poverty level.
|
|
|
Post by jordankimbo on Jan 15, 2016 1:41:44 GMT
I like Lauren's point on how welfare is kind of the ideal thing for people living in bad economic situations. It doesn't reduce the willingness to improve, like Socialism would, where all the wealth is distributed 100% equally, therefore ridding society of improvement. However, I don't think that welfare is completely balanced right now. From this article www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/05/grothman-single-parents-welfare/ I get the impression that welfare might be giving out too much, which might reduce the drive people have to change. I'm not condoning welfare, I think it is a great idea to help out families in economic straits, I just think we need to find a "Goldilocks" spot, where it's not too much, or too little.
|
|
|
Post by nicolecsn on Jan 15, 2016 2:10:06 GMT
To add to what Fiona said, I agree with the idea that the government should provide programs for the poor. There are currently a few programs available for those in poverty. For example, EBT food cash and goverment-issued medical insurance like Medi-cal. If we keep providing programs like these, there could very well be a lower percentage of people lying in poverty with zero resources. Programs like these allow people to reach out and get help with what they could need. Poverty is definitely a shared responsibility because the poor don't have the same opportunities as the wealthy and need the extra help the government can provide.
|
|
|
Post by hannahelisofon on Jan 15, 2016 2:28:57 GMT
I do strongly agree with you Fiona, although I do agree with Joanna that we aren't exactly "as strong as our weakest link", especially regarding the direct funding. Similar to what Erik touched on, direct funding really can't solve the long-term issue of poverty. A more sustainable and permanent solution such as welfare programs would be much more influential and successful in the reduction of poverty. Additionally, taking other measures to allow the growth of the middle class and the development of the individuals in the face of poverty is something that is hard to achieve when the responsibility is not shared. That being said, I do think there is room for gray area regarding government support of the poor because it is unclear to what extent the responsibility is shared because there is definitely a possibility of too much support that could be detrimental rather than beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Strehlow on Jan 15, 2016 2:50:54 GMT
I agree with what Erik said about giving direct income versus providing legitimate opportunities in education or labor that have longevity is correct. We can't ignore the fact that nonviolent crime runs rampant in lower income neighborhoods, especially compared to the affluent neighborhoods such as the ones most of us live in. I can feel safe walking around at two in the morning in West Menlo Park, but someone in East Palo Alto could not easily say the same. Drugs like crack, amphetamines, or in rare cases krokodil are drugs that are cheaper to make and easy to gain access to in said low-income neighborhoods, and I think. Giving those in poorer neighborhoods a fairly sized sum of money instead of new found advantages and opportunities to climb the social ladder could lead to people who don't know what to spend their money on or how long it will last them blowing it on drugs, firearms, or making other poor investments for someone living below the poverty line.
Additionally, it should be acknowledged that those in poverty are exploited and mistreated by large corporations which rely on huge numbers of people in poverty or without access to education who need easier jobs such as working in retail or at a warehouse. These corporations, specifically Walmart, want to keep those in poverty poor because as long as those people bear children who are also poor, the corporations never risk losing their work force. In addition, the potential work force will often take whatever abuse necessary in order to have a stable job. Walmart has fired strikers or protesters before, and show an example of why many in poverty are afraid to speak up for themselves. Part of being poor is lack of access to healthcare plans and accommodations by companies who employ them due to low pressure towards those companies to give their labor force said rights. We need to not only create programs and opportunities for those who are poor, but also speak up for them and force corporations such as Walmart to give them the rights that should be expected to come with their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by fionalokey on Jan 15, 2016 2:56:37 GMT
For clarification, by stating that we are "only as strong as our weakest link" I do not necessarily mean that wealthy people are in situations as bad as those who are living below the poverty line. That being said, as a nation as a whole, not individuals, can only experience so much prosperity within the constraints of the enormous wage gap. Currently, CEO's and other highly paid workers are receiving more money than ever- the 1% takes home nearly 25% of the national income- yet lower-tier workers have seen few positive effects from the influx of wealth. A large portion of our society is living on or below the poverty line, and if our country wants to improve its economic situation, it needs to find ways to first raise citizens above the poverty line and then limit spending on resources that will hopefully become unnecessary. If the wage gap continues to grow at the rate it has over the past few decades, the number of people living in poverty or uncomfortably may increase, and the ability of the American society to be successful as a world power and provide for its citizens will also decrease.
|
|
|
Post by bethdolin on Jan 15, 2016 4:38:29 GMT
Lauren, I agree that welfare is an a good way to help the people below the poverty line. I think that it's the duty of the people in the upper class as well as the government to help the people who did not land on their feet, whether it be because of low income, opportunity, job loss, etc. However, Fiona has a point as well. Th government has other options and other ways to help those in poverty. Giving them money is the easiest route, however the money may not be going where we all think it is, like food, housing, essentials to survive. There is the possibility that it goes towards personal use of drugs or non-essential things, which welfare is meant for. Anyone can apply for welfare. If you can prove that you don't have a job, welfare is relatively easy to get. However, I believe some take advantage of that, and get on welfare to have extra money, or use it for other reasons than what the government intends. Therefore, I think we need to come up with a way to make the idea of welfare, or giving back to those in poverty, more efficient.
|
|
|
Post by nicolesalz on Jan 15, 2016 8:35:47 GMT
I strongly agree with Hannah that if we truly want to amend our long-term issue with poverty we must focus more on welfare programs. Particularly, because as discussed in class, many people living under the poverty line are unsure how to spend the money they receive from the government (or more realistically it's spent on drugs and alcohol). This is why the government must focus on programs regarding welfare in order to promote and help the poor gain a suitable education and eventually a profitable job. As Lauren mentioned, these welfare programs would not take away the incentive for the impoverished to find beneficial work, it would merely help them attain a more satisfactory lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by laurenmclaughlin on Jan 15, 2016 9:01:43 GMT
Fiona, I like your argument, because like the aid workers and volunteers who go into foreign countries to help out and improve the conditions and lives of the people in developing countries, their mission is not to simply drop off a check and then leave; instead, they want to make the people who are living in poverty self-sufficient, so that they can learn to hold themselves up better. Creating a dependency on the money of other nations is not the answer to poverty. On the other hand, like lauren mentioned, money can play a huge role in improving impoverished conditions. This money, however, should be focused on more long-term and far-reaching effects that a simple check will not have.
|
|