|
|
Post by elizabethmccolloch on Jan 13, 2016 23:10:28 GMT
I believe that solving poverty is a shared responsibility because there are so many factors that contribute to making a person impoverished. Many of these factors are out of his/her control, and are a result of injustice, violence or mental health issues. In contrast, people with wealth often do not face any of these problems. These are not only the reasons for their financial situations, but also the reasons they stay in the positions that they are in.
|
|
danaw
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by danaw on Jan 13, 2016 23:13:47 GMT
What factors specifically do you think affect a person's ability to escape poverty?
|
|
|
|
Post by michaellandolfi on Jan 13, 2016 23:15:31 GMT
I agree that some people are placed in to unfortunate situations but there are other people who make bad decisions that lead to poverty such as drugs or gambling. To actually combat these issues fairly the government would have to determine who was unfortunate and who made bad decisions which is a near impossible task.
|
|
|
|
Post by meganmcdonnell on Jan 13, 2016 23:17:09 GMT
Going off of Dana's question, poverty is incredibly crippling to one's ability to escape their situation. When your are in a dire place economically, all of your energy and time must go into sustaining what little you have. There is so much more to weigh you down. People who live easier lives don't have as many worries and responsibilities, and then can focus on other areas of their life.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurencox on Jan 14, 2016 0:31:43 GMT
I agree with what all of you guys are saying. Also, many people have much more money than they could possibly need, and that money could be used to profoundly change the lives of many americans that are impoverished, possibly despite their best efforts to advance economically.
|
|
|
|
Post by aarthipopat on Jan 14, 2016 1:31:37 GMT
To add onto Michael's point -- I believe that the government should have a role in solving poverty, but the extent to which the government should be involved in the issue is unclear. How can the government differentiate between people who've made bad decisions and people who are unfortunate, and from there, does it have the right to deny help to those who have made bad decisions?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresaamor on Jan 14, 2016 1:51:46 GMT
If people are willing to change and want to improve their position in life, they deserve a second chance. If the government helps people with programs that increase knowledge, rather than only giving people money, it could help the people who want to put in effort, without as big of a risk of people taking advantage of the system. Making knowledge and education available allows people to help themselves, rather than enabling people to keep making the same mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmccolloch on Jan 14, 2016 1:51:56 GMT
I agree with Megan. Also, an example of this would be a teenager who is impoverished. This teenager has so many things to worry about, including obtaining food and having a shelter to live in. If a teenager is starving it inhibits his/her ability to perform well in school, so he/she will fall behind the level of his/her other classmates. Additionally, if this person's parents cannot afford to continue paying rent, and the he/she must get a job, then he/she is spending time working several hours to sustain his/her family rather than studying. While that is a very specific example, it can be applied to the general responsibility impoverished children have to take on, whether or not they are at fault for their family's situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by aarthipopat on Jan 14, 2016 2:03:39 GMT
Also, to add onto Teresa's point, if people are more educated, they can pass on that education to their children later. This will most likely reduce the number of mistakes made, and the number of second chances needed. The passing of newly acquired knowledge from generation to generation will help to uphold the work done by the government to increase educational opportunities, making the government funding a lasting and effective investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbargar on Jan 14, 2016 2:05:24 GMT
Before we can define the government's role in solving poverty, we have to draw the line between "impoverished by circumstances" and "impoverished by actions". Although everyone deserves a second chance, the government cannot afford to help those who won't help themselves- funding must come from somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulbargar on Jan 14, 2016 2:11:41 GMT
Furthermore, both an upstanding college student burdened by debt and a poor gambler would technically be "impoverished by actions", though one is actively trying to attain economic stability while the other is digging a deeper hole. Needless to say, the process of distinguishing those who qualify for additional welfare would be long and implausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by aarthipopat on Jan 14, 2016 2:25:02 GMT
The other difference between indebted college students and poor gamblers is the mental health aspect that the gamblers deal with. I don't think any gambler is actively trying to dig his/herself into a deeper hole; he/she is addicted to gambling, and that's a mental health issue. I believe that the government must consider other institutions to fund outside of education, such as mental health facilities. People with mental health issues often have a more difficult time coming out of poverty, or fall more easily into it, as they are burdened by their mental illnesses. They remain in poverty through no real fault of their own, and funding for mental institutions would provide them with an opportunity to overcome their illnesses and to right themselves financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by caralinealbro on Jan 14, 2016 3:55:22 GMT
When I see a homeless person on the street, I am always hesitant to hand them my dollar for fear that it is going to waste. How am I supposed to know if they are going to spend that dollar on alcohol or use it to pay for their future education? I simply don't know - and that same reasoning applies to government qualification for welfare. It is impossible to distinguish thousands of people as some who will work hard to succeed and others who do not care at all. I do believe that there is one exception to the inability to distinguish poverty, and that would be families. Families of impoverished parents are more likely to pass their poverty down to their children if someone does not step in to help the child or family. This is where the role of government could come in. By locating impoverished families and supporting them in order to create future generations of successful, hardworking people, the government (or aid organizations) could know that their money is going towards a worthy cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by aarthipopat on Jan 14, 2016 4:43:39 GMT
I agree that it's impossible to distinguish which people should be considered eligible for government support. I also agree that families could be an exception, and I believe that if the government were to engage in more localized funding, supporting families could be an effective way to combat poverty. Impoverished families that are educated because of support from the government can pass their education and values down through generations, giving their descendants the "head start" that is so vital in today's society and economy. Any financial gains that families acquire because of government support can also be passed down through generations, also providing a financial advantage that can help families avoid poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by ascoffone on Jan 14, 2016 5:08:19 GMT
Many here have mentioned the difficulty of differentiating the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. First of all, I don't believe that anyone in America, no matter how irresponsible their actions may have been, deserves to live in the state of American poverty. Likewise, while there are those who exploit the welfare system in this country to avoid work, and those people do, every so slightly, drain the government's resources, we cannot simply ignore the genuine need of millions of families essentially trapped in poverty. The reality is, a life on welfare is not comfortable or secure by any measure, and as a result, it is rare that people intentionally stay reliant upon it. I feel that it is worth funding the irresponsible activities of those few for the sake of supporting the millions who have a dire need for the most basic of resources in this, the richest country on earth.
|
|
