Words: 558
In a wealthy country that could more than afford o pull its people Out from under the poverty line he asks why don’t we? “The greatest injustice of unregulated free market capitalism is that is provides for some and excludes others” (page 424) America is built off the idea that if you work hard, anything is possible, the sky is the limit, but is it? According to Bestir the rich have become to rich and the poor have become to poor. We have become less and less willing to tax the rich and feed the poor. Is it the equanimity with which the majority contemplated the poverty of a minority'(page 424). On the other side of the argument people feel as Hough some people are just unwilling to work, to that Bestir claims “among those who appear not to want to do so are many who are physiologically incapable of sustained work, so their poverty is not really voluntary. Children of course in no means deserve to be in poverty, yet are twice as likely to be living below the line than adults. ” Not a single child is responsible for her poverty. “Programs that punish parents for their alleged irresponsibility do an injustice to their innocent children none of whom deserve to be impoverished. Poverty, Bestir states is a solvable issue “Simply y taxing those who are better off and transferring enough income to the poor to raise them above the poverty line” (page 425). Unfortunately it is not that simple and the welfare program according to Bestir has been broken since the sass when the program switched from aid to families with dependent children to temporary assistance for needy families.
When the change was made it was justified that the old system was not working, the govern meet felt it was creating a “dependent class of people who were encouraged to be unproductive because they were supported by the state” (page 427). Bester’s main complaints with the new system; its unreliable. People places on TAN are required to work after two years on assistance and are only given a maximum of five years in their lifetime on support.
Bestir states “l owe poor people at least enough support that they not be destitute. The poor are owed support not because they provide services to the nonporous but because they are human beings of equal moral standing with the nonporous, human beings who share the same social space”. I have to say to this, and to a lot of this argument I deeply disagree. To some parts of his argument I of course support for instance the fact that children must never suffer due to poverty and that those who are unable to work should be supported.
Yet I do not agree in the least bit that those who choose not to work should be supported. If the hard working are constantly being penalized for the lazy, the hardworking will eventually decide that it would infect be an easier more enjoyable lifestyle to be lazy and to be paid for that instead. In turn we will eventually have an entire country of people on their couch waiting on their welfare check in the mail. Its just not in support of the American dream and deems too communist to me.