'Beating Poverty with Income Support\r'

'Orwell (1945) was correct when he wrote that â€Å"All animals be created equal only some animals be more equal than others,” actu completelyy referring to human beings whom scientists refer to as animals. Throughout the history of humanity, hoi polloi have by and large known that they were created equal. And yet, there have been separations, discriminations, dissimilarities, and inequalities, for the reason that God, temper or Evolution †depending on what we choose to view in †did not grant equal abilities, talents, and gifts to all human beings.Some men ar spicyer and more effectual than the others. Some are born deaf, dumb, and blind. And, some must(prenominal) rely on income support because they just cannot demolish need on their own. Then there are the leaders of mankind who cannot think like the confront seeing as they are set obscure from the others in the position of leadership. If leaders were to act as though they were the equals of their f ollowers, the position of leadership would have to be abolished.Hence, those that have special gifts or utilize their abilities in special ways would never be sincerely yours equal to the rest, despite the fact that they were essentially created the akin way. According to the conservative view, poverty is mostly unwitting; that is, short(p) people are working unassailable enough to be able to support themselves but they remain low nevertheless. The liberal view is that poverty is caused by discrimination; that is, those that are considered disadvantaged, e. g.the single mothers and the African Americans, are believed to be at a sacking because society would not grant them enough opportunities to win their prototypes of living, which happens to be the reason for the affirmative action policy. The extremist view, on the other hand, exclaims that it is the culture of corporatism that has failed to raise the standard of living of the entire population. This is the reason why th e rich happen getting richer, while the paltry keep becoming poorer, as proved by the statistics.Regardless of our beliefs round the reasons for poverty, the presidency has shouldered the responsibility to care for the poor by spend almost half of its spending budget on income support programs such as genial insurance, public assistance, and work/employment programs. In order to raise the standard of living of the poor, the government also considers education as an essential social welfare program. After all, if the government were to stop supporting(a) the poor by whatever means it can, our country would be pretty much like a third solid ground nation where the majority is poor and sleeping on the streets.Yet, a number of literate people among our population †most definitely those who are not poor enough to be on income support †argue that the government may be wasting its money on the poor and senseless folks. Such people further argue that the poor and hungry people will become dependant and virtually useless if the government were to go on supporting them. But, how would such people consider answering the question of poverty that is facing the third world? The poor people in the least substantial nations are certainly not dependent on their governments for income support.Their governments cannot afford to support the poor and needy people as they ought to †seeing that leaders are not equal to their followers. Hence, we should be glad that we live in a nation where the government (the leader) is in a position to support the people (the followers) to an extent that should tally us all grateful citizens. What is more, we are in a position to guide the least true world with respect to policy in the matter. References Orwell, G. (1945). wildcat Farm. London: Secker and Warburg.\r\n'