I'm glad Lee has confirmed my suspicions that there are definately people below the poverty line in the United States of America.
Throughout the CLDL I've tried to keep my arguements simple. I intend to do the same here. I will argue from a platform based on Cost and cost effectiveness, and whether or not it is needed.
The cost of massively increasing social services would be enormous. That is an undeniable fact. The logical upshoot of this is that in order to "substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States" the United States Federal Government pay an equally substantial sum of money to accomplish this. Where, pray tell do you propose they should get this sum of money? Sure, you could raise taxes, but that has the effect of reducing the amount of money the average american has to spend on goods. Which is a no-no when you're in a recession, on the grounds that if the consumers have less spare change, they'll buy fewer goods, reducing the income for big buisnesses, which prolongs the recession. Which, forgive me Lee is far worse ecconomically than poverty. And borrowing more money is likewise a no-no because the US national defecit is well in excess of $13,000,000,000,000. paying that back is what needs to be done, not borrowing more meney in a desparete attempt to fix the unfixable.
Next, I'll look at the cost effectiveness of governmental interventions. When I think of the United States Government attempting to fix its ecconomoy through massive government spending, I think of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal for the American people. How did that end up working out? It resulted in an unstable ecconomy that collapsed as soon as the purse strings were tightened. Here's a picture to sum up how well it worked.
The Government sponsored programes didn't work in the thirties, and it still doesn't work.
And is government help really needed for people in poverty? I'd say no. Not because people in poverty aren't in need of help, or are somehow undeserving of it, but because the government is not ideally placed to give them the help they need effectively. As I've stated above, governmental assistance for poverty is ineffective and expensive (at a time when cash is short and poverty is high). What should be done then? The answer is simple. Promote buisness. What do people in poverty need? A sufficient income. Who is capable of providing employment? Buisnesses. What happens when buisnesses are productive and people have more money to spend? The GDP grows. What isn't happening in a recession? GDP Growth (by definition). And before you accuse me of talking out of my arse, I'll point out that the New Deal and its massive government spending that ended the Great Depression. It was World War 2 causing factories to reopen in their droves to make (and sell) 'Munitions that did that. Which would be equivalent to promoting buisness. Which is my arguement.
So in conclusion, the Government should
not attempt to fight poverty by increasing social services, because it is too expensive and inefficient. It should attempt to promote buisnesses so that the ecconomy can grow and more people can be employed, and therefore afford more things which would remove them from poverty and further fuel ecconomic growth.
I'll start off with a simple intro and build up over time.
