The welfare state should not be provided to everybody!!

Intro
Welfare may be defined as the state of doing well. Some governments, in seeing a need for
improving welfare among poorer and disadvantaged populations, have arranged social welfare
programs, providing assistance to these groups, often in the form of financial aid. Typically, this
aid serves families with small children or those with a disability. While established for a noble
purpose, social welfare programs have prompted multiple points of view related to their benefits
and potential dangers.
Intro 2
The Mauritian welfare system was originally designed to help those in need, but serious flaws
keep emerging that make taxpayers doubt the efficacy of these government-run programs. In
the past few decades, an influx of newspaper articles exposing problems within the system has
brought about passionate arguments from welfare opponents.
Why is the quality of services in hospitals so disastrously low?
Why are so many old persons being left behind when attempting to stop a bus?
Why there are so many failures in our education system?
Why is the rich becoming richer and poor becoming poorer?
Why

Societal Danger
Some fear that social welfare programs give people reasons for becoming destitute and
in need of assistance. "The Principles of Economics" notes that, because qualifying for
assistance is usually dependent upon a family having small children and being without a
father, welfare programs may encourage broken families and illegitimate births. The
argument in this case is that welfare can ultimately increase the incidence of poor,
single mothers--although it is ironically aimed at reducing the numbers of single mothers
in poverty.
Those subscribing to this point of view echo the words of President Richard Nixon in
1969, who said, "The present welfare system has to be judged a colossal failure. It
breaks up homes. It often penalizes work. It robs recipients of dignity. And it grows."
It is not remarkable at all that a system that defines a certain poverty line and then
gives away that amount of wealth would reduce poverty; the question is whether this
practice is beneficial. Welfare policies reduce incentives to work by reducing the income
difference between not working and working. In the US, welfare costs have exploded
continuously since welfare policies were instated. This reduces productivity dramatically,

and even worse puts a crushing burden on the working and middle classes who pay the
majority of the costs. Regressive tax systems, such as the retail sales tax, put most of
the burden of paying for these programs on the lower classes. A better option is to
simply let people earn a living.
The idea of preventing crime through economic regulation is yet another example of the
state trying to solve a problem it has caused. Government policies favoring big business
over small business, housing and zoning regulations, and pure neglect to public
programs in the inner cities (while robbing the poor through regressive taxation) have
caused ghettoization in the first place. Inner-city streets are in disrepair, useless schools
only harm youth, and police are positively malevolent toward the people they are
alleged protecting (but have no incentive to). The governments prosecution of crimes
such as drug use and prostitution further brutalizes these people. It is no wonder that
these areas are violent and dangerous.

Political Danger
"The Dynamics of Social Welfare Policy" notes that welfare programs can also serve as
political tools, providing the destitute with just enough aid to pacify them and dissuade
them from organizing politically against governmental inefficiencies.

Cheating the System

1. The welfare system relies on the honor system, and the fact is that people are taking
advantage of the lack of oversight. In September 2008, The New York TImes
reported that a welfare recipient named Vlastimir Matorkik made $200,000 a year at
his job as a banquet server, yet he used false pretenses to apply for Medicaid
benefits. Simply put, there are so many applicants and not enough government
workers to thoroughly research and evaluate every request.
2. Of course, there are many people who have serious impairments or illnesses that
prevent them from working, and they should be provided for generously by society.
But its pretty clear that, in recent decades, society has cynically cast the incapacity
net ever-wider, leading to more and more people effectively being rebranded as
physically or mentally deficient rather than simply unemployed. That way, the
unemployment stats can be massaged, and societys failure to provide people with
gainful employment can be redefined as an individual rather than a social failing
apparently it is because these people are weak, pathetic and incapable that they
cannot work, not because of the structural malaise of capitalist society and the lack
of vision amongst those who govern it.

Need for Privatization

One argument echoed by many conservative welfare reformers is that private non-profit
companies can offer the same services to needy citizens as government agencies can, and they
can do it for less. This argument is an ongoing plea by many citizens calling for the government
to get out of the welfare business, ultimately turning the fate of its needy citizens over to local
non-profit efforts. Conservatives promote the idea of privatization vigorously, suggesting nonprofit organizations have more accountability as local, private agencies than the government
does, and are therefore more cost-effective and better able to respond to the specific needs of
individuals in that area.

Abuse of Public Services

Non-credential for getting services (Cheating the system)
Over-Dependence on the system
Societal dangers
Bridging the gap between the poor and rich
Saving governmental fund