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.
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.
People want to claim that the government shouldn't be involved in everyday affairs and "limiting" self-expression. However, they're missing the point entirely because WE are the government. We're the ones who choose our representatives to represent OUR best interests, which should obviously include include things like healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure, the environment, and the ability to develop as human beings. America has been handed to corporations by the corrupt demagogues we call our "representatives." It's sad that people think that's the way that things should be. That they believe it's ok to leave the destitute in their current state, perpetuation a vicious cycle of misery. I believe America has the problems it has today because it's an exclusivist society where the self reigns supreme above all. Look at Scandinavia. Yes, they have small and nearly homogeneous populations, but they're a shining example on everyone takes care of one another, because the people ARE the government.
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.
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.
At the end of the day, the government should be responsible for the welfare of its citizens. The citizens are what make up the USA and in order to keep the USA together, you have to make sure that first its people are okay. Sometimes, people really do need help and cant do it on their own. Sometimes, it wont be that persons fault why they have to live on the street. Those people should be the ones that the government helps out.
We choose them to represent us, so they need to help us when we need their help. That is the main reason why governments need to take care of us. That doesnt mean that they have to spoon feed us; they just need to help us get back on our feet as individuals. They are the ones guiding our intrests as a country, but they need to keep us safe in order to represent our beliefs.
On July 4th, 1776 America gained its independence from Great Britain and officially adopted the Declaration of Independence which pronounced their freedom, sovereignty, and self government. In 1787 the U.S. Constitution was adopted which stated the main purposes of government, solving conflicts, satisfying common needs, securing the nation, preserving culture, educating youth, protecting rights, protecting the environment, and ensuring the safety of all citizens. By signing the legal document, the delegates made a covenant with the US citizens and all posterity that they would abide by the promises made in the Constitution. Therefore, the government must fulfill its obligations to the people.
The goverment is by the people for the people. It's number one purpose should be to make sure it's citizens are all taken care of. Without its people there would be no government. I am not talking about hand me outs, but if its citizens are temporarily struggling, those citizens should be able to ask for temporary help.
We pay a lot of taxes. Everyone will agree on that. However, if the government doesn't take care of us, what use will the taxes be? None. We would be giving away our hardly earned money for nothing. The government MUST take care of its citizens because they get a lot of money from us.
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!
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.”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.