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

The topic states "Resolved: Governments should give food and money to care the poor. " My main argument will be 1. Just like welfare, freely giving causes the needy to be dependent on the government 2. The government shouldn't give out these thing, charities should. C.1 Dependence [1] Dependent - "a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support. " [2] Give - " freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to. " When someone relies on someone, or something else, they become dependent on that person or thing. They *expect* these things (food--money. .etc) to be freely given to them. They expect to get these things without doing anything for it. They don't believe they should or have to do anything in return. The problem with this, is that the homeless have become do dependent that they are unable to live on their own *without* the support of the government. The government doesn't teach the homeless social skills, appropriate behaviors and basic professional skills. They don't teach them how to get a job, how to fill out a resume and such. So, if the government were to cut off all types of welfare, the homeless would NOT be able to survive on their own because they have became too dependent. As provided by the definition of "give" it's easy to comprehend the fact that the homeless have become dependent on any aid given to them, and they're not taught anything that will better them and further them in life. The resolution also says that we should *give* money to the homeless. This is completely ridiculous. Freely giving money to the homeless would old help those fund their drug or alcohol addiction. [3] Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs. Alcohol abuse is more common in older generations, while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). As you can see, the statistics are pretty high for homeless with an addiction. If the government were to *freely* give out money, the homeless would be able to fund their addiction even more. C.2 Alternatives [4]"Governments solve large problems by general means, but the problem of poverty is individual - the government doesn’t have the ability to solve the problem at the personal case by case level that leads people out of poverty. Only private charities, well meaning, community or sectorial-based and unlike the public sector, unencumbered by bureaucracy, can solve each individual’s problems with the follow up needed to teach them how to fish, not give them fish. .. . In any case, even if the poor person is in a state of destitution, we do not believe governments should directly provide money to this person, as done today. In our points, we detail our view of why it is the government’s role to directly take care of basic needs, such as feeding those who can’t afford to buy food, but not provide those people with financial aid on top of that. What we propose is over time, reduce until cancellation the amount of money given on the basis of relative socio-economic status, while at the same time using that money to enable larger tax breaks towards giving to charity or employing the poor. We’re only cutting financial support - not actual services which enable basic rights, such as public health or schools. This will also bring about a big change in perspective, and allow the people to contribute to the causes that they believe in, instead of taking their money for a program that consistently fails to deliver results. This will keep the same amount of money in the welfare system, or possibly more, but now the money will be targeted and used more efficiently, more discerningly, and the problem of poverty will be reduced significantly. " It's *not* the government's responsibility to freely give money and food to the homeless, so an alternative is that charities should do the work, I mean they already do. [5] 1. Charities are focused. Each charity is aimed at a specific problem, and chooses the tools & personnel most suited to solve it. None of the govt’s overhead means more efficiency. Charities aren’t burdened by needless rules, that apply only in governmental projects. They can hire and fire with no constrains, with much of the staff actually volunteering. 3. Charities have to be efficient. If they don’t show results, or if the donors feel that their money is misused, they’ll lose donors, just as if volunteers feel that their efforts are wasted, they’ll leave for a better charity. Also, by law they are more transparent then byzantine govt programs, and must be so to keep the donors happy, and acquire new ones. 4. Many Charities work directly with and in the community - charities can better understand what each community needs, and how to best supply it. As you can see, many charities are quite capable of helping the homeless. They can shelter then, and help with them with providing food. Some charities even have programs to help the homeless get their life back on track. Pro's resolution included money, meaning he believes the gov. should freely give money. This in fact would *worsen* the homeless causing them to A. Fund their addiction and 2. Become dependent and lack life skills. Sources: [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . http://www.nationalhomeless.org... [4] . http://debatewise.org... [5]. http://debatewise.org...