Housing, education, health care, utilities, cell phones, gas, cars, clothing, food, etc. EVERYTHING should be free and the government should provide it to us at no cost. We shouldn't need to work when our government has an obligation to provide us with everything we want and need from cradle to grave.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
One of the goals of formation of the United States is to "promote the general Welfare" of its citizens.
There you have it!
The people elect these politicians to serve their needs. There shouldn't even be a debate about this. The American government is supposed to be for the people, instead what we got is a bunch of talking heads making sure their wallets get fat with the corporations money. To them it goes corporation first, party second, themselves third, and maybe just maybe we the people. We are not talking about a random group of people. We're talking about our government, if it's not focused on helping us then we're in trouble as it is. Our election system has become bribery, of course if we did it, we would go to jail. Thomas Jefferson told us the first and only objective of a good government: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only objective of good government." Looks like our politicians didn't listen, the people either.
I believe that basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare and education should be free or heavily subsidized by the government, and welfare programs such as those for the sick or unemployed should be improved. These things are important human necessities, which no one should be forced to go without, regardless of their circumstances. Of course, I still believe that people should work if they're able to, so that such a system wouldn't be abused by the lazy.
"take care of" can mean so many things.
First off... if you care about your own children's health, you're going to want to take care of every citizen within your borders. Just out of public health stance you should. By not doing so you are applying some moralistic tone to the topic. Then you have to ask why are you doing this. Ayn Rand comes to mind. Rome eventually fell, and one of the symptoms of their Epic Failure was they ceased taking care of its citizens' health. When Rome was at its peak, everyone was taken care of.
We take care of prisoners in prison, so government should take care of people who need help, as its a compassionate thing to do as the constitution says to support the general welfare and the supreme court has agreed with this and has said this is the law of the land and laws are meant to be obeyed. That's why the disabled get ssdi and ssi(supplemental security income, ssi is not social security), ssi is not supported by payroll taxes, just by all other federal taxes, like income, corporate, excise, etc.
If the Government does not take care of the people, then who will? People in all categories are required to pay taxes to the Government, and they should definitely receive services from that money. Just the simple fact that Government should help people is another reason. The Government is designed not just for themselves but most importantly, for the people.
If one pays taxes and falls in hard times, YES! If someone is disabled, YES! There are too many people that cannot even afford health care. I am perfectly willing for my taxes to help those in need that cannot otherwise afford medications and doctors and hospitalization. I am not saying that everyone is due the care. I see people use the emergency room like it is a walk-in doctor's office and they are receiving governmental health care. I think certain restrictions need to be placed on it all, but if someone is in pain or has a condition that keep them from being able to work...they deserve to not have to suffer. We take care of the health needs of other countries...why not do it for our own citizens. I know someone who is disabled, cannot work even if they want to, but they are not allowed disability because $1,100 for a family of 5 is too much for them to receive it. They chose to stay home with their disabled child and take care of him. Now they have been stricken with a neurological disorder and has seizures. There is something wrong with that!! I won't go into how much money the government wastes that could be used to help people. The elderly that took care of all of us as kids are being tossed away and not cared for just because of a money issue. The elderly are having to get divorced just so they can get medication. Being together and barely scraping by does not leave them enough money for medication...yet the gov't thinks they are not low income.
The government is not obligated to actually 'take care' of all its citizens. The question is very poorly worded. The government has a duty of care to ensure that anything that it does is not to the detriment of its citizens.
For instance, it is working cutting down on the amount of help that people have to stay in housing that is too large for their immediate needs. They should have a duty of care to ensure that as a result of this policy that people affected do not become homeless by proactively helping them to move into a downsized property. This is especially true if there is a real shortage of smaller housing. Not everybody has the wherewithall to be able to do it without help.
If you define taking care of its citizens as protecting them by maintaining a standing military and all that stuff, then yes governments are obligated to take care of its citizens. If you talk about human rights then again yes, the government is obligated to try to prevent or eliminate genocides and stuff like that. Anything else outside that that is comparable to pandering to people is something governments arent obligated to do.
You were not consulted on the finer points of the constitution. You had absolutely no say in what "right?" You were given. You were born obligated to a system. There really is no opt out; no frontier you can run off to. It doesn't really matter if you want to be a citizen or not: you are part of the club merely by birth. Your consent is not required. The collective gives itself complete power over you. It can take your property, imprison you, fine you or even kill you. With that power comes responsibility. If a collection of people can take it unto themselves to bind all those born after them in perpetuity, it surely has also created an obligation to take care of them if needed.
yes... the government should be working for the people... its people should not fear the government. we worked and pay taxes for many thing but we pay into taxes for our s.s after retirement as well as insurance for senior years those are some of the taxes that we pay. and, that is not a free hand out but what we have paid for our future.we did not ask for our government to waste that our monies we spent wrongly.our government should not exspect us to pay for their mistakes of spending either.our promise that ... those tax dollars would get a prcentage upon retirement is not a free hand out but earned by our hard works.a promise by mouth is a contract.word of mouth in trust and believing what our government promise on those tax dollars.other tax dollars other than those was the governments to waste but we should not have to work longer years to pay for the waste.alot are not healthy enough to work until 68 years or 70 years of age.but do we have a voice to say .. no we do not.but we are given more and more taxes to pay. .. and , we do it is the law. so i feel a promise made and taxes taken for that reason should be kept also.so by that the government should be obligated to do for their people.
i think that the government must have an obligation to provide safety and needs to it's citizens, because government, according to merriam webster is defined as, "the ruler of land", which means they are incharge of the land. being incharge of a land is taking care of it, keeping it safe, and providing everything that land needs.
Citizens pay taxes and abide by the law so that in return the government will ensure that no one else breaks the law, and if the citizens cannot pay taxes because they cannot provide for themselves, the government will help them in return. For the government to take the taxes it requires but not protect its citizens in return would be a breach of contract. It would be grounds for a revolution under the terms set down by the founders of the United States in the Declaration of Independence.
Because if they don't then the citizens wont feel safe in America. The citizen has a right to life, liberty, and happiness. That is everyone's right. If Americans don't feel safe then they wont live in America. So therefore the government should care of its citizens. That is why I say yes.
We the people as hard working, law abiding citizens deserve security in our country. Everyday is not promised to anyone, but I want the security of know that I received the best cared provide because I am insured. I am not say that doctors don't try, but insurance covers medicines as well. There are people in this nation that need more assistance than others. So help those that need it.
The purpose of government is to serve and protect the people. Nothing more, nothing less. What people give to the government should come right back to them. The government needs to be held more accountable for how it uses taxpayers money, such as the squandering of the social security fund.
Think of what the government does on our behalf. It tells us what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, what is civilized and uncivilized behaviour. What does all that do to a child? It tells him how to live in the world and the way he can survive in the world with freedom and free will. Now, if you don't take care of the child and don't teach him civilized ways to live in the world, who is responsible for the wrongs he would commit for survival and livelihood? Remember the natural resources and the earth is for everybody (every living thing). You can't tell a person that if you don't have money you don't have the right to survive.... His right to survive is independent of everything else, if we don't want him to do something illegal for survival.
Within the bounds that the governments sets for restrictions of personal rights, it is necessary for it to take up the burden of ensuring that the trade-off of rights gained is equal to or greater than those rights lost. This is the standard social contract that has be the purvey of governments since time immemorial. Governments which have not upheld their side of the social contracts, in taking from their citizens but not returning the services agreed upon, have fallen or are in decline.
For safety in our homes, we have given up the rights to enter others homes. For safety in our country, some portion of us have sacrificed the lives of our brothers, sisters, children, and parents. For the right to earn a 'fair wage' we have given up a portion of those wages to the government for regulations of the businesses and people that pay us for our work, to have access to our work in a reliable manner through the transportation systems. For the transportation systems being reliable, we have agreed abide by certain rules for their use.
In all these things the give-and-take relationship is obvious. A necessary balance is maintained.For the government to put out more, more must be given by its citizenry. This debt must be paid in money, or time, or in some cases blood. It is primarily a question of how much you expect from the governmental system, and how much you, or the country as a whole, is willing to give to the system.
Other than taking care of it's citizens. The Federal Government is Useless and unnecessary. We would be much better off on just Local state levels and Abolishing the Federal level. It is outdated Bureaucracy lacking in direction and a burden on the quality of life of millions of American Citizens. If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem. It should be the only goal of the Government to insure the sustainability and a continuing effort to improve the quality of life of it's citizens.
The government of any republic and democratic country is directly elected by its citizens. They are the elected representatives of the people of the country to be able to run the country in the best way possible and in the best interests of its citizens. There have been several instances in history where governments have been overthrown because they did not safeguard the citizens' interests and took advantage of their position in the country. There have also been governments which have stood for years together because their governance has been able to inspire trust amongst the residents of the country.
Citizens have both a moral and economic responsibility to each other in a society. Individuals will pay taxes for the support of schools, highways, social security, and other social welfare programs because it directly benefits them and those around them. These actions provide a needed security if the citizens are rendered unable to meet societal expectations.
By "take care" you mean - protect, honor and provide the best services to, right? Citizens should not get a free welfare check from the government because they cannot secure a job. The government should facilitate ways in which to match citizens up with jobs in the country. No one should be living off of the government. The government is there to serve and protect the people. By raising taxes to fund more legislation breeds laziness. For instance, why should I go out and work real hard at a job when I can get a welfare check and free healthcare? The government is always obligated to it's citizens, but they should not have the right to take away my money and give it to someone else - that's called socialism.
Government already does this for foster kids, the government pays for food, housing, and education until they reach a certain age. As soon as a child enters the system, they are under full support of the government. Why shouldn't the government do this for others who just arent finacnially stable enough to live comfortably day to day? We need certain things to survive in this world, so if the gov't claims to have our best interest at hand, why shouldn't they put out the money to make sure these basic needs are met?
The government is us! "We" are the people. Why don't politicians give back their salaries? It used to be a volunteer position. By the way, their healthcare is paid for and they continue to be paid after they leave office. Why is that a good way to run a government? Let's change the voting system. Won't work either...too many ignorant people who don't understand necessity. The wealthy voted down cutting funds to public transporation (they didn't need it). This lasted until they realized that their maids and gardeners couldn't get to work. We need to support each other and assist one another.
Not everyone is capable of getting or keeping a job. We have mental and physical illness in this country and it effects more people everyday. Lucky you if you have not felt how devistating this can be. You are one of the privelaged. Here's something...why do millionaires pay less in taxes than secretaries? Because they have loop holes. Why don't we close those, revamp how assistance is handed out, put everyone who wants to work to work and everyone can go their marry way. It's sounds good on paper. Now look on the streets. I mean in the cities, in the blighted areas not the suburbs of big cities where things are well hidden.
"Lay not aside the fear of God, O kings of the earth, and beware that ye transgress not the bounds which the Almighty hath fixed. Observe the injunctions laid upon you in His Book, and take good heed not to overstep their limits. Be vigilant, that ye may not do injustice to anyone, be it to the extent of a grain of mustard seed. Tread ye the path of justice, for this, verily, is the straight path.
Compose your differences, and reduce your armaments, that the burden of your expenditures may be lightened, and that your minds and hearts may be tranquillized. Heal the dissensions that divide you, and ye will no longer be in need of any armaments except what the protection of your cities and territories demandeth. Fear ye God, and take heed not to outstrip the bounds of moderation, and be numbered among the extravagant.
We have learned that you are increasing your outlay every year, and are laying the burden thereof on your subjects. This, verily, is more than they can bear, and is a grievous injustice. Decide justly between men, and be ye the emblems of justice amongst them. This, if ye judge fairly, is the thing that behoveth you, and beseemeth your station.
Beware not to deal unjustly with any one that appealeth to you, and entereth beneath your shadow. Walk ye in the fear of God, and be ye of them that lead a godly life. Rest not on your power, your armies, and treasures. Put your whole trust and confidence in God, Who hath created you, and seek ye His help in all your affairs. Succor cometh from Him alone. He succoreth whom He will with the hosts of the heavens and of the earth.
Know ye that the poor are the trust of God in your midst. Watch that ye betray not His trust, that ye deal not unjustly with them and that ye walk not in the ways of the treacherous. Ye will most certainly be called upon to answer for His trust on the day when the Balance of Justice shall be set, the day when unto every one shall be rendered his due, when the doings of all men, be they rich or poor, shall be weighed." -- Baha'u'llah.
The very core and meat of government is their social contracts. John Locke explains this in his Two Treatises of Government Section 123, Locke says: “If man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody why will he part with his freedom, this and subject to dominion and control of any other power? To which is obvious to answer that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings such as he, every man his equal and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of property he has in this state very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition which, however free. Is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join a society with others who are already united or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates which I call be the general name- property.”
This paragraph clearly explains why governments are morally obligated to take care of its citizens.
We vote for our leader's,we pay them taxes,we are the people,we are united states of america,without the people there is no america,without the people there is no goverment. And why not shall the government take care of (us) the people? Why not? Without (us) the people there would be no national defence, no security for all witch includes the government; by the people.So i think ; YES, the government should take care of the people with no second thought's , so in other word's people that we the people gave all of you the benefit to take care of (us) the people; please do so; dont be hipocript's and do not oath in vain to protect (us) the people and dont do so, remember our indipendance day witch we the people fought for our freedom to have a new and fair government that will allway's oath and has the obligation to protect and care for (us) the pleople. I wonder if president washington had the chance to be now among (us)the people,what would he say? What would he do? Do will be allright? Or do he will do something about it? Do he will had another independace day? Or he will be silence in his own nation that he fought with (us) the people? Or not? For we the people was created tha independace act,for we the people not for (we the goverment) it is the right of the goverment to keep (us) the people safe and enshure what is on our constitution act to live for the time that shal be no more by means of natural destruction of (us) the people.............. Jlc(juan laboy collado)
You were not consulted on the finer points of the constitution. You had absolutely no say in what "rights" you were given. You were born obligated to a system. There really is no opt out; no frontier you can run off to. It doesn't really matter if you want to be a citizen or not: you are part of the club merely by birth. Your consent is not required. The collective gives itself complete power over you. It can take your property, imprison you, fine you or even kill you. With that power comes responsibility. If a collection of people can take it unto themselves to bind all those born after them in perpetuity, it surely has also created an obligation to take care of them if needed.
It is my firm opinion that our government's official authority is theoretically hindered by its primary goals and purpose in our nation. For example, morality comes into play in some situations, such as our justice system and enforcing the law of the United States. However, there has to be some form of limitation as well. In this respect, our type of government does NOT dictate a forced religion or means of making a living. So, I guess what I am saying is that I believe the government has a duty to protect its citizens and help keep their best interests in mind (this can mean improving health care or environmental budgets), but I don't think it is necessarily fair for the government to continue with adamant welfare programs for those who chose not to work or claim disability when they are clearly able to work.
They should be if this is still a Democratic nation. We the people elect these politicians to serve their needs. They should not need to pass laws about this. The American government is supposed to be for the people, instead what we get is lot of people with different views that all try and get what is best for them. I think the government is obligated to take care of its citizens to a certain extent, because of basic human needs. I believe that basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare and education should be free or heavily subsidized by the government. Which some of which they do. Welfare programs such as those for the sick or unemployed should be improved. These things are important human necessities, which no one should be forced to go without, regardless of their circumstances. Of course, I still believe that people should work if they're able to, so that such a system wouldn't be abused by the lazy.
All people are entitled to some services beyond basic services. One example would be treatment for curable diseases, no one should have to endure a curable disease because of a lack of personal resources. This is where the Government becomes involved. In human health, as well as in other areas, the Government must protect their people because the people who feel entitled to these services vote. Even in America, a country that is fundamentally right wing in a lot of ways, adheres to these people that make up a large portion of the voting population.
The government needs to take care of its citizens. Too often, citizens are subject to the wills and whims of their employers. There is not enough health care coverage in the United States, when we could easily be taxing the top 1% of earners and covering everybody's needs. There are people dying of poverty and malnutrition in this supposedly "first-world" country. If that isn't inhumane, I don't know what is. The government has an ethical and moral obligation to look after its citizens. It's even in the government's best interest. Keep citizens alive, and they'll continue to be able to give back to their country.
government should protect the people because if it doesn't than the people will fight for them self and than try to overthrow the government. we also pay taxes in which some of that money goes to the army, government, and health care. I believe that if the government does not protect the people than the people will riot against the government.
The entire point of a government is to take care of its citizens! It is there to make sure a country or region runs smoothly and that the needs of its people are met. Like the old saying goes "by the people for the people." People do not vote on a government just to have it ignore their voices and proceed with its own agenda.
I do agree govnerment is obligated to take care of its citizens. it just dowsnn,t tie in with the finacial part but also with civil rights and saftey and things of that nature. If a man was perfect there wouldn't be a need for government. And also we pay ridiculous taxes so we should be taken care of.
The Constitution says that WE are the government. When we, through our government, choose to take care of those who cannot take care of ourselves it is the same thing as taking care of a member of our family who has fallen ill or fallen on hard times. Our democracy was never intended to be one social Darwinism. You can see his in the Declaration of Independence where it says "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." It means we're all in this boat together as Americans, not sorry, Charlie, you're on your own.
Those in the "NO" column those who have depended on the government the most. The roads they drive are safe, the food they eat is non-toxic, the schools they learned in, the electricity in their homes...all is regulated and made to serve the public good ONLY the government. And for those who cry that they don't want the government taking "their money" - without government to back its value, "their money" would be worthless paper.
Working together is the fundamental point of having an organized society instead of going it alone. Those who think they oppose it overlook the numerous things the government does (such as enforcing contract law, providing roads, police, etc.) that make it possible for individuals to succeed. When the government looks the other way the baser elements of human nature emerge and people take advantage of each other. Every organization looks to its head for guidance, whether it's the coach of a sports team or the government of a country, that top spot is there to provide leadership and care for its members. Otherwise, what's the point?
Apparently there isn't any legal documentation that says the government has to provide any services. I was surprised by this myself. I guess it's part of the "Social Contract". It'd be nice if I wasn't obligated to pay for these services.
Stating that citizens have a right to life, without backing it up, is deceiving and immoral. In the U.S., people die from easily treatable diseases, because they are uninsured or under-insured. We have given insurance companies the right to decide if we can have surgery, which is an obvious barrier to our right to life. Additionally, due to societal forces beyond our control, many are thrown into the grips of poverty and should be cared for, as they are as worthy as we are.
In a developed country where citizens pay taxes and vote in their leaders, the government is obliged to provide proper care and services for the citizens. Representatives are voted in by their constituents, and as such have a duty to serve the best interests of the people. Basic needs should be served, such as health care, schools, safety, and nutrition.
The government has an obligation to make sure every citizen has equal opportunity, starting with education. The government should provide free computers and WiFi and put all the educational videos from K-12 for free. That's the only request I have. Everything else we should earn it, and support us by subsidizing, which they already do.
Not only should the government take care of the citizen body which is bound by law to pay government regulated taxes, but it should take equal care of those citizens as it does itself. Health insurance provided to a senator or congressman should be provided to you and me as well. If my elected official gets a five thousand dollar kick back or campaign contribution, so should I. In fact the government is obligated by the Constitution to put its people first. Maybe we should be taken care of completely, and if there are not enough funds remaining, they should be the ones to go without services.
A large majority of people that respond "NO" to this question are indeed people that have been provided with the essentials they need to live a good life. Despite the fact that you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, there are a large majority of others who were not. There are several factors that come into play when be able to finance and care for yourself, and if you believe that it is as easy as walking down the street and finding a job, you have indeed been sheltered from reality and must be wealthy or well-off in some sense. A large portion of people that receive assistance from the government do not live in nice suburbs. They reside in the ghettos. For many that is not a choice. It is unfortunately an area that they were born into. There are people who, no matter how hard they work and strive, cannot get a break to save their lives. These people need assistance. Health care is a necessity, and without it, the quality of lives of so many would deplete. To say that the government shouldn't care for it's people is simply ridiculous.
Markets, charities, religious institutions and the morality of men used to ensure the prosperity and social harmony of citizens. In a free society, the relationship between the state and man is simple. Thomas Jefferson best illustrated this point when he said, “Man is not made for the State, but the State for man, and it derives its powers from the consent of the governed.”
The government's job is to provide security and infrastructure that promotes individual's rights to life, liberty and happiness. Confiscating one person's hard-earned gains to take care of the 'less fortunate' is inappropriate. Public ed., while necessary to some degree, does not serve everyone....And it tries to do too much, like the old cliche "Jack of all trades, but master of none." Healthcare should be an individual endeavor as well - heal thyself, first. Food and housing are not guarantees and providing such for free does not guarantee equal protection under the law. Yes, people hit snags in life and may need a helping hand now and then (but NOT forever.) Private sector, charitable organizations should provide the means for these unfortunates to get over the hump. And, how great it feels to dig into my own pocket and help someone; how awful it feels to have the IRS reach into my pocket and decide how to be charitable on my behalf!
The government is only supposed to provide basic services, such as law enforcement, emergency response, education, etc. But it is the citizens responsibility to take care of themselves, and thats what makes america a free country. It should be your decisions that make you suceed or fail, not the governments. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." (Gerald R. Ford)
What is being defined as "care" by this question? Does this mean government should "care" for those that refuse to work instead of those that really are in need? Does this mean that government should "care" for the right of a woman to kill her unborn child while turning the "care" away from the right to life of the unborn being destroyed? Does this mean that government should "care" about a persons right who chooses to use substances(mind altering drugs) that result in the death of a fellow man over the right of the suffering of the victim resulting from the action of the drug user? If governments position were to "care" for the above mentioned, which position of the opposite sides of the fence would it take. It cannot have both. People ... Think!
We the people are more than capable of taking care of ourselves. A few hundred bureaucrats in D.C don't know how to take care of the lives of the gas station owner in Texas or the hair stylist in California. D.C isn't meant to take care of us, they are meant to protect us and our ability to provide for ourselves. If the government gets out of the way then maybe we can get somewhere.
Taking care of citizens is a very broad idea, and it all depends on how you look at it. If you are talking about arranging for welfare and taking care of those who choose not to help themselves, then the government is absolutely not responsible for this. We are all adults, and should take care of ourselves. And, if we do not, we should be held accountable for it.
because the citizens need to learn to take care of themselves. If they become dependent upon the government for health then they ultimately become dependent on the government for everything in their lives. This would lead to a disastrous outcome in any nation because they government cant support all of its citizens.
The second the government becomes our sole provider to all our necessities, it makes us at the mercy of their decisions. They could withdraw all entitlments to the people and men and women after being so reliant on the government will have no idea how to support themselves. We should have our own independent responsibilities from the government. If the government becomes our parents then we are nothing more then a nation of children with not idea, how to take care of ourselves
Social Security is like extortion to me with a hope that if people live long enough they might get some of the money back that the government took from them.
Although the Social Security Act entitles workers to receive benefits, these benefits are not guaranteed by law. The federal government does not have a legal liability to pay retirees the money they paid into the system over their working careers and Congress can change the rules regarding benefit eligibility at any time. Therefore, workers paying into the Social Security system do not have any contractual right to Social Security benefits.
I think that the government doesn't have to pay to take care of other people. They can take care of themselves and they're not handicapped so they can take care for themselves. They can drive themselves around and/or walk around to look for a job.
The government has some basic obligations to its citizens. These include protection from foreign enemies, providing justice, and maintaining certain services. It is not, however, obligated to fully take care of its citizens. Citizens are ultimately responsible for themselves. We do not live in a nanny state, and I doubt anyone would wish to do so.
When a government becomes responsible for taking care of personal responsibility it promotes laziness and stagnation. Social issues like health care are not rights they are responsibilities. "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." When you let big government rule over your life personal liberties will surely be taken away.
The gimme generation, everybody gets free cell phones, food stamps welfare, ssd and ssi for things stupid as ringing in the ears, of course some people need food stamps, welfare, and social security, but not half of the people on them. Every single one of my friends sell their food stamps for HALF PRICE for drug money, thats where your tax dollars are going, drug addicts who take their food stamps, convert them into half the value for cash, and heroin balloons. Why does nobody speak of this? ITS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE EVERYBODY IS SELLING THIER FOOD STAMPS FOR DRUGS AND THE ONLY ARGUMENT PEOPLE HAVE IS THE GUBMINT SHOULDNT HAEED US? LOOK WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND YOU
This question is misleading and can be interpreted many ways. If the question is meant to ask if the government is obligated to keep its citizens safe, then I would change my vote. But, the way I interpreted it was that the government is obligated to take care of its citizens on a personal level, which is why I chose "No." I believe people should support and take care of themselves. Too often in countries around the world people sit back and expect the government to support them. Many '1st' world countries are lacking two things that all people should have, which are self-determination and pride. We should all wake up in the morning and look ourselves in the mirror and make a promise to ourselves that "today we are going to do everything in our power to improve our standing in society." It doesn't matter if you are the president of a fortune 500 company, or washing cars on the corner. Hard work and striving to be the best at whatever it is you do will pay off in the long run. I understand that some people are unable to work or go through rough times. In these instances, I believe it is up to our fellow citizens to assist that person, not the government. The government is run by people just like everyone else, so why can they do anything better than any other citizen? History has shown us that whenever the government does do anything, it is normally much less efficient than when private citizens do the same thing. With all this being said, I am going to get back to writing my research paper, because when I woke up this morning I made a promise to myself that I was going to do my best to improve upon myself today. The one way I can do that at this stage in my life is by striving to be the be the best student in the University.
One affirmative viewpoint is that the government must protect its citizens by reason of the social contract theory - that is, citizens sacrifice some rights for protection from the government. However, "protection" doesn't necessarily stem from "taking care of". The government is obligated to "protect" its citizens, but not to "take care" of them.
The federal government is a necessary evil - a body of mediators and decision and lawmakers is needed as societies grow beyond groups of families and villages. Its only real purpose is to mediate trade both within and without the country, and to provide for a common defense of the country. All other resopnsibilities taken on by the federal government can and should be taken care of by local bodies, who are closer to the problems needing solutions, and therefore can make better, and more informed decisions.
Having a cradle-to-grave mandate for for government intercession in the lives of its people simply relegates adults to be eternal children, and removes both the liberty with which they were born by keeping them dependent children, and the freedom to succeed or fail as a responsible adult. You can't legislate fairness unless you can fundamentally change the human race from a collection of individuals to a collective of all-the-same-Brave-New-Word type drones. Free will, the right to make your decisions based on reason rather than instinct is a gift that should not be abdicated to any ruling body for the dubious privilege of what amounts to indentured servitude to the State.
I don't believe the government is obligated to take care of its citizens, especially in a Representative Democracy, because too many people will become too reliant on government. They will eventually run out of other people's money to spend, and they can't print money forever, or it will become worthless. This will also take away the incentive for people to work and take care of themselves and at some point what the Government gives can be taken away.
The federal government's jobs is clear and it is small. Over the decades and centuries it continues to take more rights and responsibilities from the people to tend their extended families and neighbors. And with it comes the "Need" to take our money as well in order to function this way. The government is wasteful and to big to operate effectively or efficiently. The answer is obviously not to make it or let it get bigger. Let the government take care of national defense, international policy, printing money, and when necessary, to step in and regulate interstate commerce, which should be done reluctantly and sparingly. The rest should be pushed to the states and further down to the individual. And like their right to take more taxes because they claim the job of taking care of our families and neighbors, we need less interference, to keep more of our earnings, and more authority to act on our own behalf in order to do this. If you think the basic nature of people is not to do this than how can you argue that some distant body who does not see your family or your neighbor other than as a statistic only to be concerned about as potential vote and a means to stay in office and keep power over the masses? Giving the people just what they needed to keep them from revolting is a tactic of fiefdom and serfdom. So we are slowing working to obligated and indebted... completely relying upon the good graces of the lord of the land/government. I would rather struggle as an individual with more opportunity despite the chance of failure, than to be beholding and depending to the government.
The role of the US Government is to protect its citizens from tyranny as well as outside acts of terror. They should also create a suitable climate for growth and independence among its citizens. They should provide necessary things such as clean water, but only because the infrastructure required to transport it is entirely too large for many private firms to setup and maintain. They should not provide things like cable TV or cell phone service. That was not their intended role and and a private firm can provide better service to the citizens than the government can.
If man and beast kept the laws of God, there would be JUSTICE and not just pampering known criminals. Read the law and see if they were applied today how it would curb virtually all major vulnerabilities. Jesus even said that a man should carry a sword, but it is to be used correctly. People need to protect themselves and government needs to get rid of it's laws and put God's law into practice, as a "constitution" as the true forefathers did for nearly 140 years before the founders of the constitution usurped God's law, or the attempt to live by it as a society, which starts with the individual. Go read the first 5 books of the bible and see how things would be better with less laws in the world.
I agree that short term the Government should have a safety net for its citizens, however, by providing an incentive and lessening the burden onbusiness and small charitable orginazations this problem can be overcome! Welfare should NOT be a career path that has been the choice of many for way too long! What happened to the mindset we had 30 years ago when people wanted to earn for themselves? Why do we think we are owed? Why can we not compete with corporations for healthcare? Is it because there is no free market capitalism in healthcare? Yes! We are regulated by interstate commerce laws and are simply not able to shop for healthcare outside the boundry of our state. Who put that law into effect? I believe we need a safety net for folks that have fallen into hard times, but I believe that the goverments role and size should be limited.
Everyone assumes that the government is an entity that has its own resources when in fact the government does not have any resources at all. It is the people that provide everything for the government. Because our government has become so large people accept the fact that it should play a significant role in the lives of the people. This questions would be more accurately phrased, "should citizens be obligated (even against their will) to care for other citizens?" The resources that go towards caring for its citizens is collected from the citizens. Do not lose sight of the fact that people have passed laws requiring you to give them your money and those same people decide how your money will be spent. I believe there are programs that need to be funded such as defense, but not to the majority of the programs. Please read the constitution to have a better understanding of the purpose of our government. I don't mean to ruin it for you, but it is not the governments responsibility to feed you, clothe you, provide you with healthcare, etc. Citizens pay for these things not the government.
I can't believe there are people out there that actually think its the governments job to provide them a living. We are not a "cradle to grave" society like Europe where the' central government plans your life for you. That's BS! Unless you are handicap and cannot take care of yourself, you have no business asking the government to wipe your a$3a!
The Government does not care about you and does not have to worry there citizens. The Governmnet needs to back off people's lives. It's non of there business what we do. No one cares about everybody, It's impossible. In this world today it's all about money. If it weren't for
money, there would no obligations or Laws. I don't care about everybody and Im a very good hearted person. Probably off topic, but...... I'm ventillating. It's True though.
No, the government is not obligated to take care of its citizens aside from basic needs (roads, school, police, fireman etc). Personal needs are the responsibility of the citizen sand their family. It is high time that government assistance program such is SNAP, housing assistance, Medicaid be eliminated. It is time to put the responsibility back to ALL citizens.
It is not the governments job to take care of you, that is your responsibility, it is the job of the government to make sure that your rights aren't infringed upon by others or the government itself.
The role of government is simply to protect the rights of the people. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's job is not to put a roof over your heads, food in your belly, and nurse you back to health when you are sick.
It's job is not to tell you what you can buy, what you can sell, when and where you can buy or sell it, and everything else regarding transactions.
It's job is not to tell you who you can associate with, what groups you can support, who your friends are, and how to raise your children.
The government cannot give you anything it hasn't first taken from someone else. If you want to help poor people, if you want affordable healthcare, if you want to be able to go to college and not owe tens of thousands of dollars once you are done, if you want to be able to find a job, if you want everyone to be better off than they are now, then you want a smaller government.
The average US citizen's tax burden in 2005 was 54.5%. The estimate for 2013 is 59.7%. That's more than half of your earnings, gone.
Could you not afford health care if you had twice as much money? Food, shelter? Could you not afford to help your fellow man who needs it if you had twice the money as you do now. What does government then do with money it stole from you? It bails out corporations. It pays for ever growing bureaucracy. It wages wars on the other side of the planet. All with your tax dollars.
Products and services would also be cheaper without government interference. It subsidizes food, education, healthcare, and almost any industry you want to imagine. All this does is raise the prices of these goods long term. This is simple economics. Colleges can afford to raise rates every single year because it has dedicated money guaranteed from the government in the form of FASFA students and other grants and loans. With less seats to fill, it can afford to have less overall customers because it doesn't need as many. The end result is they still get all their seats filled, but are able to charge more while doing so. Normally when you raise prices, you lose customers. But when some of those customers are getting a free ride no matter how much it costs US citizens, it doesn't affect them, so there's no need to shop around. They'll just go to the school they like the most. Sending poor kids to school, much like all of our doomed social programs, sounds like a great idea, but it seldom, if ever, works out. It only makes prices higher for every one, creating a cycle of dependency.
Do you really need a small group of people thousands of mile dictating your life, telling you what you can and can't do? I haven't needed a babysitter in years, and I doubt you need one either.
to handle such things as protecting you and your stuff, while not overly infringing up your freedoms. There is no way that the government could take care of its citizens without in some way robbing other citizens. I would like to take care of myself, not have the government say "Oh, don't worry. We'll take everything you have, but we'll provide all the essentials that you need."