Topic: Is the government can really make a way to end poverty or it depends on us? - page 11. (Read 1810 times)

There are many thoughts on this one. Considering the population, the literacy rate in the country, infrastructure, and people's voting towards good government can make big difference. If a country is hosting a government body which has very poor co-ordinated people then definitely they won't good for the country. Poverty is not the definition of money actually, it's all about how literate people are. If the literacy rate increases then definitely employment changes, people start earning money as per their skills and increase their wagers over the period of time.

So if any country promotes education at its best then they will develop. The government will also receive a handsome amount of revenue in return considering 99% of people are working class. Thus, they can focus on other stuff like national infra, more educational institutes, higher research, and much more.

The reason why some countries are more developed then others is because of there governments working in right direction by creating job opportunities, providing adequate health and education facilities to its citizens. You can see that countries that are far behind in development is mostly because there governments are involved in corruption.
You are right if we live in a country where government is not doing enough for its people then one must not keep himself dependent on the government rather take some initiative that can improve one's lifestyle.

Wealth getting accumulated in few people's hands is the major reason for the existence and increasing poverty around the market world. This can be overcome through proper study and taking necessary measures. When the government does things in an effective way, automatically common people will give hands and support. In very few countries we were able to see the diverse growth, whereas in most of the countries the growth gets accumulated in specific region. This increase the market In that specific region and the rest stay as it is for years. This makes job opportunity accessible for specific groups. So, some form of diversification could make life better and eliminate poverty.

By the way - there is a great example when the state decided to build a "state of general welfare." This is about the USSR!
On the one hand, there were a lot of slogans, propaganda, and even a legislative framework, within which all inhabitants of the USSR were supposed to have at least an average standard of living, a set of social benefits, etc. utopian promises.
What really happened? As a resident of the USSR, I tell this in the first person, a direct "participant in the events." What did you end up building? They built a country where 90% of the population is a POOR population, with pseudo-incomes, pseudo-social guarantees. No more ! That is - the global poor, without prospects, rights and opportunities to change something. And this despite the fact that the USSR had huge resources! At the same time, the propaganda landmark has always been on the phantom "poor population of the capitalist world"! That is, propaganda invented how unacceptably people live in the West, and the poverty of the USSR was presented as a "high standard of living"!

I think what you say is very appropriate to explain the duties of the government in each country they lead. However, sometimes some citizens are not aware of this, so they continue to ask for help from the government, even though the assistance requested is in the form of money consumed within half a month.

Actually this clearly needs to be straightened out so that everyone can understand the duties of the government because the government, apart from providing free education, clean water and building schools, the government now in several countries also provides free health and employment opportunities for young people who have certain talent in each of them. The point is lazy is a trait that must be completely discarded by everyone if they want to get rich independently in their life.

I see there are some problems in the current society that make people's life difficult but I don't want to talk about this. Because I think that not everywhere everyone's life is the same, we want equality in life, but so far it has almost never happened because of selfish greed or selfishness. groups with conservative views.
I'm not sure if the OP is really looking at the right problem, when the truth is that if there was no government to operate the economic machine and support the people, the economic situation of the war epidemic in recent years would this will probably turn some countries down. So the solution is to be patient and act ethically.

Government are not responsible for making people rich, some people believe that government is responsible for their own laziness, the government can only bring good opportunities like free education, run water and build schools, this is the job of the government, not to enrich people, or something.

In short, the government's role is to provide more opportunities to for the poor to work and earn a living for themselves. I have seen lots of cases about people who keeps depending on the government's benefits without even taking action for themselves. This is why by teaching them how to handle their own finances can also be a big help for them to improve their way of thinking or approach towards money.

Government has a role to play to enhance the life of his constituent since they are the one who will give opportunity or skills to their people to get more better job or create good ideas which can be converted to money for theirselves. If no government support will exist for sure the country will struggle to find good programs to help their people.

But people shouldn't rely on what government could provide since at the end they are also the one who will work for it so thay they will be equip with knowledge and can get better jobs to get out of poverty where they currently on.

What you are talking about now is called "state control". But... It's a bit off about a "guaranteed solution to poverty". Although not, there are examples of state control, or attempts. For example, Venezuela. A "wonderful" example is when control and attempts to "force everyone to live well" led to a diametrically opposite result.
Therefore, a NORMAL state will never engage in "manual control in your refrigerator."
The state must create conditions for people to live with dignity. Once again, "conditions" and "people could", i.e. not to take money and give it to everyone, but to create conditions so that people, working, have the opportunity to achieve a higher standard of living. This is where the state assumes obligations - it is the socially unprotected sections of the population - pensioners, disabled, functionally limited citizens of the country. But their standard of living is directly proportional to the volume of tax collections, and inversely proportional to the level of corruption. Therefore, I clarify once again - the state is only a regulator, and we must "forge happiness" ourselves!

Depending on us, they will only help a little to create jobs in various ways, one of which is bringing in foreign investors. The government is also only tasked with regulating the circulation of the local currency to prevent inflation. The government will also only regulate security and order for everyone who wants to run a business. So the main actors to end poverty are ourselves and the government is just the people behind the scenes.

As much as i dont want to say it, unfortunately the government does play a role in poverty eradication!!!

Why do i say so , well the govt is in charge of policing which affects the economy generally and translates into either well paying jobs meeting minimum wages and also helps in setting the tone of employment ,  the govts involvement also helps bring down inflation which helps fix price of goods and service's which trickle down to the citizenry and the ability to afford them or not.

Btw i dont know about other countries but the government is the biggest employer in most countries and if its not employing it means more people will be out in the street's jobless trying to survive if poverty doesnt get to them first but in this modern technology its important to equip ourselves with extra skills to survive.

And that's the direct impact to the people and can be seen if the government really does something for the sake of the people.

But to eliminate poverty, you just can't ask them to do it on every single life and person that's on their country. That's a personal matter that everyone has to deal with.

They're there as a guide and if they've got aide that's being assigned to their citizens, that's better.

In my country, I would say the government is really making its obligation to help the citizens particularly those who are poor people. But even so, I cannot say that they can put an end completely to poverty. There’s always a need for cooperation between the people and the government to fight against poverty. Otherwise, if only the government will act on it, leaving the people completely dependent on the government, we will never come to alleviate poverty.

Government is can not stop poverty from what I'm seeing so far, I believe that government only care for provision of what is relevant in the country not to eliminate poverty,  but a government that have the people in mind will directly, care for the people and create employment opportunities for them.

In my country we've got separate category as poverty line. Even from that politicians does corruption. Based on the category of poverty line, anyone who is able to spend 0.4$ in urban area and 0.3285$ per day in the rural areas were considered as poverty. Even with such a calculation my country stands at the 107^th position among the entire countries on Global Hunger Index. Government along with the people should've have better plans and execution to eradicate poverty which won't happen overnight.

Correct. If it's about poverty that will always exist in every country then of course it will always exist. even in developed countries we will always be able to find homeless people.

but the problem is about the majority and minority in the country. if a country is managed honestly by its government I believe the level of prosperity of a country will be more guaranteed. because state revenues such as from taxes and others will be returned to the development of the country itself. In contrast to a country that is dominated by a corrupt government, most of the money generated from state revenues from taxes and so on will probably only return to the pockets of officials. and the rest is then used for the development of the country.

So the government's role is still very important. but that does not mean that every poverty suffered by the people is caused by a corrupt government. no, I don't think so. because actually everyone is responsible for their own condition. even every year there will always be people who are originally rich and experience bankruptcy until they fall into poverty. and conversely there will always be poor people who succeed in changing their lives for the better and even become rich. and it is indeed part of the cycle of life that we cannot get rid of. and of course the government can do nothing about the cycle either. but talking about the prosperity of a country, it is clear that the government plays an important role. because after all they have been trusted by their people to make the country more advanced. but the contribution of society is also very much needed. so the people and the government must work together in this matter. namely in building a more developed country.

if it talks about poverty individually then it is very unwise if there are people who even blame the government. because actually he is responsible for himself. everyone should have their own motivation, inspiration and innovation. keep working hard, keep learning and keep improving themselves.

I think the government alone cannot end the poverty.  It needs the participation of its citizen.  The government may lead the drive to end the poverty but the citizend are the major actor on this one.  Government can make programs, projects and information drive for ending poverty while the citizen are the one participiating, maintaining and accomplishing these projects.  After all, the program of the government needs its citizen to make the program realized. 

So, IMHO, Government and citizen working together can really make a way to end the poverty.  No man is an island so cooperation and collaboration between the government and citizen is the best answer to end poverty.

War will contribute to poverty irrespective of how the country situation has been, it can get from good to bad and it can get from bad to worse, don't ignore war because it can destroy what country has been building for yearss even if the country has riches in aboundant.
Bad governant is another point, when a country has bad governing, nothing will prosper in that country irrespective of what they do, it may lead to curruption and people will start stealing wealth for them selfs while the rest of the people so far without good food and high inflation.

Someone here can explain to me - why do people think that the government SHOULD provide a comfortable life, and the citizens of the country themselves should only sit, wait, and until the state has solved the problem FOR THEM, suffer?
It actually sounds very funny. At least because the majority does not understand how the state and the state economy work. And they do not understand where the eradication of poverty, for example, can come from. For starters, one simple word - TAXES! If everyone pays them, as in Switzerland, for example, then they live like in Switzerland. Do you know that the population there opposed the increase in the introduction of an unconditional basic income? Which would provide everyone with an even higher standard of living? They probably didn't know. Do you know why? Think!
And remember an even simpler thing - the state - does not print money to distribute! It collects taxes and in proportion to taxes, according to priorities, divides them into pensions, and provides a minimum living standard, and medicine, and much more. Those. forms an acceptable standard of living! But at the expense of taxes and adequate distribution. And if the government that the population chooses itself is corrupt, and the population does not pay taxes, then it is stupid to dream of "solving the problem of poverty"!