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.
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.
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.
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
A government's ability to do good is directly proportional to its ability to do evil. INDIVIDUALS within government might have a MORAL obligation to help other INDIVIDUALS. Please stop spending all of your time screeching at the rich and powerful to save people, And go do it yourself. You don't need to donate to charity to help. Go VOLUNTEER with a charity. If everyone donates but nobody volunteers, Nothing will happen. The few people who ARE employed by the charity will be richer and no changes will be made. Go help your neighbor fix their car, Or something. JUST HELP OTHERS ON YOUR OWN! Government is (or should be) about the preservation of rights, Not wealth. I do understand that the existing government favors the rich and powerful and we suffer for it, But the solution is not for US to get free stuff, The solution is for us to push them to prevent monopolies, Fear mongering, And corporate control.
Also, Don't forget that there will still be individuals telling empathy-begging sob-stories to pander for your support in making the government give them free stuff for their hardships. People who REALLY need help will seek it out from other individuals, And not demand it from big daddy government.
CLOSING STATEMENT: Legally forced morality/ethicality creates a lack of legitimate concern and love for one another. Over the years, We lose any reason for actually helping people beyond the legal, And thus become selfish. This will spread to all societal levels, And people with power will screw others over for their own benefit without hesitation, And the previously "moral" policies will be disregarded in favor of a 1984 hellhole. Morality MUST be choice.
Should charities continue existing? Nowadays, There is a debate among society whether charities should continue to do their function or the government should take over. This opinion essay aims to conclude which move ought to be done by society according to this open question.
It's widely known that the government's ability to do good is directly proportional to its ability to do evil. Consequently, Individuals within the government might have a moral obligation to help others, Said so you don't have to donate to charity to help, You should instead go volunteer, Because If everyone donates and nobody volunteers, There will not be a change.
Governments might try to achieve the preservation of human rights and not favor the rich and the creation of monopolies, But the solution is not to obtain free stuff, The solution is for us to push them to prevent the things previously mentioned.
All this considered, We can state that charities should be responsible for helping those in need and governments should only intervene in the case of emergencies such as natural disasters and financial crises.
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.
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.
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.