Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor.

Thanks for Lee001 to accept. I am glad that she read the rules and accepted because she was over 2500 ELO. I will have few arguments. 1. If governments do not give food or money to the poor, they can't survive. My first arguments is that if governments do not give food or money to the poor, they can't survive. This is because the poor have no money and food to do anything. We are not saying give as much like how the rich has money, but to save lives. Now days, people donate to places like Unicef. However if the citizens who afford to buy stuff, pay a bit more taxes to the poor, they can save lives. For, example if there is a poor family with not much money, that cannot afford anything, they will soon stave. However if there is rich family who has millions of money, they will soon buy stuff that they want but not need. The things needed are food, money, shelter, transportation, and healthcare. However soon they will buy all kinds of things that they use only a few times. They will go to all sorts of vacations. What I am saying is that just buy some things of want, and just buy a lot of need. If you think that you do not need it, just don't buy it. You can give it to the government or to the charity to help the poor and not just buy unimportant things. 2. The government's main job is to keep care of the citizens and the countryOne of the governments main jobs is to keep care of the citizens. If they do not help the poor, they are not doing their job. I believe that the government has to do their job. Even though they do their other jobs like making laws and having order, if they do not care for the citizens, there will be less economic growth. The poor can't pay taxes, but if the government takes care of them to let them live with some food and some shelter, and a bit of money, I think that the citizens can get a job, get usual income, and then keep an end in poverty.If governments do not keep care of the citizens, with food money, or possibly healthcare, then they do not do their job. This is basically the same thing as not making laws. When the government does not do their job, they soon fail. This is why the US, China, and many developed countries are in a success becaus ehte government is doing the right thing. However, if they fail, soon the country itself will be poorer. I think that the government has to keep care of the citizens and the country.3. To help the poor give them money. The problem of poverty is huge, in rich and poor countries alike. Around the world, nearly a billion people live in extreme poverty, living on less than $US1.50 a day. Even in the United States, on many measures the wealthiest country in the world, the Dept of Agriculture estimates that 14.5 per cent of the population experience food insecurity, defined as being ‘uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.’ Faced with images of the hunger and suffering caused by famines and extreme poverty, a natural and intuitive reaction is to send food. This reaction is often politically appealing in countries that happen to have large stockpiles of food, either because of unforeseen declines in market demand, or because of government policies such as price supports for farmers. On the other hand, many advocates of development aid dismiss food aid as a short-term ‘band-aid’, and argue that the aim of aid should be to provide the ‘right’ kind of assistance, as measured by subsequent economic growth. Advocates of aid initially focused on economic infrastructure and industrial development, and have more recently turned their attention to health and education. On the other hand, as with international food aid, the SNAP program is regularly derided as a bandaid approach. Liberals frequently point to education as the way to provide real opportunities for the poor. Which of these approaches is right? Much of the time, neither. While support for health and education has a better track record than food aid, there is a growing body of evidence to say that, in both poor countries and rich ones, the best way to help people is to give them money. To see why this should be so, ask: What would a desperately poor family do with some extra money? They might use to stave off immediate disaster, buying urgently needed food or medical attention for sick children. On they other hand, they could put the towards school fees for the children, or save up a piece of capital like a sewing machine or mobile phone that would increase the family’s earning power. So, the poor family is faced with the reality of opportunity cost. Improved living standards in the future come at the cost of present suffering, perhaps even starvation and death. Whether or not their judgements are the same as we would make, they are in the best possible position to make them. This is a straightforward application of Lesson 1. Market prices reflect (and determine) the opportunity costs faced by consumers and producers. Exactly the same points apply in rich countries. Giving poor people assistance in kind, such as food stamps and subsidized housing, has a lot of political appeal. Not only does it meet an apparent need, but it appears to reduce the chance that the recipients will waste their extra income on luxuries, or on alcohol and tobacco. In addition, as in the case of the US food stamps program, it may also be possible to form a political coalition with producer interests, represented by the farm lobby. Thinking in terms of opportunity cost, however, we can see that aid in kind almost inevitably results in waste. The opportunity cost of subsidized housing is the low rent paid for the house, while the opportunity cost of moving usually includes going to the back of the line. So having secured subsidized housing, people will stay there even if the house no longer suits their needs, because it is too big, too small, or too far away from a new job. The same kinds of problems come up with food stamps. Families poor enough to get food stamps face all kinds of problems. They might, for example, need urgent medical or dental care, or be faced with eviction if they don’t make a rent payment. Most of the time food stamps cover only part of a family’s food budget, so they are really just like cash. Families can meet some of their food bills with stamps, then use the money they save to meet other needs The opportunity cost of spending more on food is the alternative that can’t be afforded. But it’s precisely when people need money most, to the point where they are prepared to live on a restricted diet, that the limits of food stamps start to bite. If poor families were given money, they could choose to pay the rent bill even if it meant living on rice and beans. That’s a hard choice, but it might be the best one available. Unsurprisingly, then, poor people often try to change some of their food stamps for money. This is denounced as ‘fraud’ and used as a reason for cutting food stamps even further. It is market prices that determine the opportunity costs of goods and services for individuals and families. So, when people choose how to spend additional money, the opportunity cost of one choice is the alternative that could be bought for the same amount. The idea that poor people don’t understand this is patronizing and wrong. The tighter are the constraints on your budget, the more important it is to pay attention to them. Poor people often have less access to markets of all kinds, including supermarkets basic financial markets such as bank accounts and face complex and variable prices as a result. Nevertheless, many of them manage to find highly creative ways of stretching a limited budget to meet their needs. Additional constraints, in the form of payments that can only be spent in particular places and on particular goods, are the last thing they need. For these reasons, I hope you vote for Pro! Sourceshttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.debate.org...