Amazon.com Widgets

Should the government play the primary role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens?

Asked by: buelg
  • Indeed it should

    With the resources the government has available to it, if it cannot protect and promote our interest properly, who can? It's the expectation of the government that it will work for what it is we want to achieve, not against it. We shouldn't be battling it out with ourselves to reach the economic and social well-being we desire.

  • I really do think that the government needs to play the primary role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens.



    I really do think that the government needs to play the
    primary role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social
    well-being of its citizens. Citizens can
    only do so much themselves. Most people
    are too busy just working and trying to make ends meet. The government needs to put those tax dollars
    to work.


  • Taking Care of Citizens is Government's Sole Purpose

    The economic and social well-being of citizens is the first and primary role of government. How a government goes about this is a matter of debate. Republicans feel we need job creation. Democrats feel we need more money directly to consumers such as unemployment and food stamps. We don't need to subsidize big companies or have corporate welfare. Governments need to be protecting individuals and not groups.

  • That's the reality of the modern world.

    We do not like in the 19th century (or earlier than that) and we are not a culture of fiercely independent people doing our own thing out on the vast open range. Like it or not, we live in an advanced society, which depends on each of us and the government we fund to provide things for us.

  • Is That Not The Purpose

    I believe governments should have the primary role of protecting and promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. I believe this is what the original American government was built on. I believe it has been torn apart and doesn't listen to ordinary system anymore, but if decision were guided by these values, then it could certainly improve in the future.

  • Yes they should.

    The government should play the primary role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well beings of all of its citizens. They are the only entity that has the power or the scope to regulate this. If the economy collapses then the government will cease to exist.

  • The government should play the primary role in the economy and social well-being.

    The government controls the country and takes all major policy decisions. Hence, it obviously should play the primary role in the economic and the social aspects of the country.
    In case of democratic countries the government is for the people, by the people, and of the people. Hence, this is an obligation, and the government is definitely involved.
    In case of non-democratic countries such as monarchies and and other such forms of government, the government may play an important role in the economy, but I feel that it is better if the burden of uplifting the poor and ensuring well-being of the citizens, should rest with NGOs free of government control.
    In communist countries and in socialist ones the government is involved, and should be involved. Communism is a from of government where all resources belong to the government and economic equality is ensured. I feel that government interference in such countries should continue,as we have seen on China which has risen from humble origins to the second biggest economy of the world.
    Hence, I vote for the resolution.

    Posted by: Vace
  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AnonyFeline says2013-08-15T20:36:21.770
That is its raison d'etre.