Do you think that free hand-outs from the government/community are bad or important? - General

Title says it all really. In my history class, my teacher said today that he's a supporter of "rugged individualism," meaning that you're responsible to provide and achieve for yourself. Things in the US, like food stamps (according to my Walmart employee relative they'll just buy junk food most of the time instead of actual decent food, not really abuse but still) and welfare in general are abused relatively often, to the point that welfare websites make it a point to highlight their welfare abuse report hotline. That being said, my history teacher used someone he knew as an example, saying he has been living on welfare checks for 10 whole years, making it a bit ridiculous to think that he may not have found a job yet. To the contrary, there are definitely people who need the extra help in life to get by. Someone may have been laid off their job or gone through any other financial crisis that makes them barely able to get by. Either way, I'm not really informed, so that's why I'm asking you Facepunch. What do you think? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("No debate presented/Asking a question" - Megafan))[/highlight]

This isn't really an argument for or against government assistance, but your history teacher sounds like a bigoted idiot, first of all, if he insists on calling government assistance "free hand outs" and second of all if he can only cite abuse as a reason why government assistance exists, implying that people only abuse it and don't actually need it. In other words, your history teacher is probably a conservative seeing as he disapproves of government assistance spending and is in support of "rugged individualism" (which is basically just another way of saying "I am in many ways fortunate in life and work for what I have, and fuck everyone less fortunate than I, a humble school teacher") [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] Also, I think that government assistance is a good and necessary thing because the majority of people do need it and do not abuse it.

The notion of 'rugged individualism' is usually based upon a just-world hypothesis which overwhelmingly blames poverty stricken people for their own situation without accounting for external social, political or economic restraints as an underlying cause of their poverty.

There's rarely a straight black or white answer to a question like this. While raw initiative *can* in some cases make you well off or sucessful, it's not going to be like that in 100% of cases. I suppose welfare and such should be intended to get you on your feet, as well as help you through rough times. Albeit if the wealth division in most first world nations wasn't so ridiculously steep, there probably wouldn't be much need for welfare. In the united states for instance, there's a very small number of extremely rich people, and a very large number of extremely desolate people by comparison. The two are entangled, the number of one effects the other and as long as there is wealth division, there will have to be poor people. The entire population cannot rise to wealth as that's economically impossible, and with that in mind welfare programs are required to make sure that the desolate of a nation don't simply starve to death. [editline]14th September 2012[/editline] It's not good or bad, but it is necessary.

Some cases yes, some cases no.

I believe that we should have social "safety nets" in the fact that you have some unemployment insurance, wic, food stamps, and welfare. However, these should be safety nets, not hammocks. People should be encouraged heavily to get off the benefits, if able, and to get a job, any job, available to either supplement the welfare or use as a replacement income. I know this isn't super realistic, but these are my beliefs.