Amazon.com Widgets

Should charities (yes) or the government (no) be responsible for helping the poor?

  • N n n

    N n n n n n n non n n n n n mn n n n n mn n n n mn n n n n mn n n n non n n n n n mn n n n mn n n n non n n n mn

  • Government Good for Emergencies

    Charities should be more responsible for helping the poor rather than the government. Governments should intervene only in the case of emergencies such as natural disasters and financial calamities. Otherwise, there should be fewer taxes and less money for entitlements. Many aspects of the federal government should be privatized, including help for the unemployed, hungry and homeless.

  • Charities should be the primary group helping the poor.

    There is a hidden assumption in this discussion due to the use of the word 'responsible.' That word implies that it is something that must be done and done well. There is a difference between the words must and should. Charities can help and how much they help is a measure of how healthy the society itself is. If the charities are not taking care of all of the poor, this is a sign that the society does not have sufficient free cash to do so or that its people have decided something is wrong with the definition of poor or the reason the people are poor. If government gets involved the bureaucracy and written rules take over and the checks and balances of the system are subverted to the point that changing conditions go unnoticed and are not dealt with. This leads to riots and revolution as the means of bringing problems to the notice of the authorities.

  • It Should Be Both

    I believe the current system in the United States indicates that it is best for both the government and charities to help the poor. I believe the charity systems need to work more efficiently, however, and they need to make sure the assistance is going to people who actually need it, rather than the people who are constantly asking for it. I'm poor and generally we need help, but I don't like begging from charities and I don't. Whereas I feel much more comfortable getting my tiny amount of food stamps from the federal government, but more importantly my sons health care.

  • It should be both.

    Ig the government and charity will be alliance in this kind of issue. It will be more effective and it will lessen the poor society where people are homeless,poor and dependent. If the two will agreed on how to govern this kind of issue it will also help our economy to adapt and to increase its ability to find more peaceful country in which more people are striving for their own success.

  • The government should.

    Although charities should play a part in helping the poor, I think that it is more the responsibility of the government. The government's job is to make sure that all people have an opportunity to thrive. Also, even though the government is wasteful, charities are even more so. They spend most of the money paying people who work for them.

  • charities or the government

    I personally disagree,Entrepreneurs and charities should not be relied on to help the poor. Firstly, entrepreneurs are business people that are seeking ways to make money, often more than the average person. While there are entrepreneurs who help worth while causes, there are just as many that don't. Charities are common, however, some use more or less of there funding to operate, making them less helpful than some government programs.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.