| Revision as of 10:33, 12 March 2005 editNikodemos (talk | contribs)7,970 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:53, 5 September 2005 edit undoRiseAbove (talk | contribs)612 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :::Again, I'd like to point out that people '''did''' starve before welfare was introduced. For the vast majority of poor people living during the 5000 years before the welfare state was created, charity offered no protection from starvation and death. Is there any proof that the same thing will not happen again if government welfare was cut? I have 5000 years of history to support the fact that people will starve without welfare. What proof do you have to support your belief that they wouldn't? | :::Again, I'd like to point out that people '''did''' starve before welfare was introduced. For the vast majority of poor people living during the 5000 years before the welfare state was created, charity offered no protection from starvation and death. Is there any proof that the same thing will not happen again if government welfare was cut? I have 5000 years of history to support the fact that people will starve without welfare. What proof do you have to support your belief that they wouldn't? | ||
| :::And by the way, $241 billion may sound like a big number, but how much of a difference did it make when compared to welfare? -- ] 10:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | :::And by the way, $241 billion may sound like a big number, but how much of a difference did it make when compared to welfare? -- ] 10:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Howdy! == | |||
| Made some changes to this thing, tried to reorganize and reflect everyone's point of view with sentences like: "some argue that X, others argue that Y." No reason why both points of view can't coexist in an article like this. Also added another example with some simple mathematics to further illustrate the issue and give it individual recognizability. I also codified the different approaches to the problem by the dominant theory in various countries. | |||
| ] 07:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:53, 5 September 2005
Some people advocate dramatically cutting welfare payments or eliminating them entirely, but this would leave the very poor no protection from starvation and death, therefore it arguably creates a bigger problem than it solves.
It is simply not true that without a government funded welfare system in place, the poor will die of starvation. This completely ignores the thousands of privately financed charity organizations that assist the needy.
- Since the poor did die of starvation before government-funded welfare was created, it is reasonable to assume that they will do so again if welfare is removed. Private charities have existed for thousands of years, and they've never been able to prevent all the poor from starving to death. Sure, charities make a difference, but it's a small difference. And even if that weren't the case, charities are inherently unreliable, since they depend on people's good will. If, for some reason, there is a decrease in public good will, charities fail. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's definately not neutral POV then. Considering that $241 billion was given to charity in 2003 in the United States , there's absolutely no reason to believe that charity donations will not increase if people were able to keep more of their money. Charity donations also seem to increase over time on a stable basis. It shouldn't be stated as fact that once government funded welfare is cut, people will have absolutely no protection from starvation and death. The statement is seriously loaded and definately not neutral.
- Again, I'd like to point out that people did starve before welfare was introduced. For the vast majority of poor people living during the 5000 years before the welfare state was created, charity offered no protection from starvation and death. Is there any proof that the same thing will not happen again if government welfare was cut? I have 5000 years of history to support the fact that people will starve without welfare. What proof do you have to support your belief that they wouldn't?
- And by the way, $241 billion may sound like a big number, but how much of a difference did it make when compared to welfare? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Howdy!
Made some changes to this thing, tried to reorganize and reflect everyone's point of view with sentences like: "some argue that X, others argue that Y." No reason why both points of view can't coexist in an article like this. Also added another example with some simple mathematics to further illustrate the issue and give it individual recognizability. I also codified the different approaches to the problem by the dominant theory in various countries. RiseAbove 07:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)