Those who are well off in society have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate. It reflects the true nature of a society when we look at the status of its worst off members. When extreme inequalities in wealth exist that is the mark of a sick society and one which cannot sustain itself over the long term. By giving aid to the poor we can help blunt some of these problems/
Giving aid to the poor just keeps the poor at the same level. I don't disagree that children should get the help they need. But able-bodied adults who are not working? It's just making our economy worse. Giving a hand-out allows people to believe they're somehow deserving of it. This should not be the case.
There is more than one reason why providing humanitarian aid to the poor is counter-productive. These reasons are economic, cultural, and societal, and these aspects are irrevocably intertwined in complex societies such as ours. First, the obvious issue is that this is a temporary solution to a problem. If aid is given, with no support in obtaining adequate education, job training, or employment, then aid must continue to be given. Even if this were economically feasible, it would not be a desirable or constructive process. Having an economy, or society, in which some are working and paying taxes, which are used in part to keep giving financial aid to a subset of the society, sets up a "them and us" situation. This situation, in turn, creates a new problem. Those receiving aid are not raised to a higher level in their educational, occupational, or societal positions. They, and subsequent generations, will continue to rely on what they, and others in society, increasingly see as "unearned" income. Only by supporting those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, by providing education, job skill training, and employment opportunities, can they become part of the "us" in "them and us."
If you measured economics, by value to gain, then this is expenditure without gain in return...unless of course recovery is fast and considered the long term. It is "morally" right, but economically not always beneficial. So in respects it can be harmful to an economy.
Please do not take this the wrong way. I agree we need to help those less fortunate especially in a time of natural disaster. However, the United States, as a whole, needs to understand that you can only give what you have. When our government gives aid to those in need they should make sure they have it to give beforehand. Instead they go further and further into debt themselves trying to help those in need which causes more of a burden on the already over burdened taxpayers.
America prides itself on being a land of opportunity. There are so many stories of people who come over here, who had nothing, and they work their way up. If people are denied that opportunity, and money is taken from the rich and handed to the poor, progress is hindered. Helping the poor is awesome, when it is done appropriately. I see nothing wrong with having welfare programs. But, when people excessively tax the wealthy innovators, they hinder the growth that could potentially break someone's poverty cycle.
Humanitarian aid to poor countries can be a positive thing, but it can also be a negative thing in terms of the local economy. If large amounts of free goods are given away in these countries, then local farmers and manufactures will go out of business as no one will pay for what they can get for free. This increases the desperation in these countries and eventually makes them fully dependent on foreign donations as no local producers exist anymore.
Not only does humanitarian aid help those who need it, it also spreads good will and puts our country in a better light. We live in a violent world, and when people have nothing to loose they are more likely to hate us and become our enemies. This could lead to more violence, and more wars. We need to win the hearts and minds of those less fortunate than us.
I believe that humanitarian aid while not only good actually benefits the economy that provides the aid. For example, after World War two, the people of Europe suffered greatly and cash had to flow in the devastated countries to rebuild them, this actually created an economy of building. Other types of aid also create niche economies such as transportation of humanitarian goods and training of local people to care for their own communities. This makes humanitarian aid for the poor not only good policy, but economic sense.
Tax money is collected to redistribute it to the society for the general well-being in various forms. Many types of aids are planned to support the sectors - whether it is a industry, education, a region or a group, which are required to be uplifted. Poor or economically weaker sections also needs some support so that they can withstand and come out of the present distress they are going through and join the workforce and contribute to the society and economy in a healthier state.
In the developed world, we don't truly understand the impact that disease and hunger can have on an economy. When a population is sick or hungry, the economic output is decreased dramatically. By helping countries to overcome these sorts of humanitarian problems, we can actually help them to increase their GDP, and it can be a great help to their economy.
Development aid, if mismanaged, could cause economic harm to a poorer country. But, this question is not about development aid. By definition, "humanitarian" aid is in response to an unusual disaster that demands extra response. If there is a tsunami, an earthquake, or another event that puts people in imminent danger of death, then an emergency humanitarian response to that unusual situation is a special intervention that doesn't really relate to the ordinary economy of the country. People who are in imminent danger of death from an emergency desperately need food, water and medical care, which is why we help by moving in with humanitarian aid at times like those.
If the poor were not provided aid, they would end up stealing so that they would be able to get by. Businesses and homes would be broken into for food and money. People would be walking around with guns and knives for protection. The crime and the fear would cause more negative economic harm than would providing aid to the poor.
Humanitarian aid to the poor prevents an overburdened law enforcement system. It costs money to hire more police officers necessary to combat poverty-related crime. It also costs the judicial system more money in hiring public defenders for the poor people who have resorted to crime to alleviate their poverty.
They say that society can be judged on how they treat the poor and unfortunate. If we took better care of the poor, there would be less money spent later on expensive hospital bills that they won't be able to pay anyway. I think that health care should be a right in America, and it makes me very mad that it isn't. Also, there is no reason that good food should go to waste, because an organization doesn't want to donate it, or they aren't getting a government kick back to donate it. I think well-fed, healthy people, no matter what their background, are going to be able to better contribute to society, as a whole, in the long run, which, in turn, will divert economic harm.
In the short term, providing aid to the poor produces a negative economic effect by exchanging produced items without obtaining the same value in return. For example, if a person produces a food item at a cost of $10 that can be sold for $15, but instead donates the item, the person is "out" $5 dollars, which, if received, could have been used to purchase other goods or services from other persons. However, with such aid, the poor may be able to become self-sustaining and productive in their own right, and by doing so, contribute back in the long run more ultimate value than lost in the short term.
Since the beginning of time it has been a recorded human behavior to pity those less fortunate than us. Providing aid to the poor allows the human race to continue to survive. It in no way damages the economy and probably even makes it better by providing jobs and circumstances for the human population to better itself.
While the best type of humanitarian aid that can be provided to the poor is the type that helps them become self-reliant, there is nothing negative about other types of aid offered to them. While I'm no economist, I don't believe that those who are destitute don't put forth an honest day's effort to provide for all their needs, and that the humanitarian aid that is offered to them is just a part of that honest day's effort. Therefore, there is no negative impact on the economy.