"The government should give money to everybody who does not have enough money for day-to-day expenses." Please argue for and against. |

Today this is still a very sensitive question, as entitlement programs make up a large portion of the federal budget.  On one hand, people see these programs as a way to help the downtrodden and unfortunate.  On the other hand, people see these programs as encouraging people not to work and thus creating generational poverty—generation after generation living off the government dole and thinking that it is acceptable.  Here are the two arguments:

Government assistance often goes to people who work, but work in entry-level or manual labor jobs.  These are hardworking people who do jobs that society needs done.  Many of these people also have families to support and without a little help these people might become desperate enough to commit crimes.  From a strictly economic standpoint, people receiving government benefits, for example, food stamps, put a lot of money into the economy in terms of purchasing power, which puts people to work.  

On the other hand, there are those who argue that government entitlements are bad things.  They claim that the government tends to mismanage agencies, such as Medicare and housing projects.  These libertarians also see taxation for the purpose of giving someone else money an infringement on their freedom to make a living.  They also claim that government entitlements creates an entitled class of people who do not want to work or apply themselves toward a better job.  

While there are other arguments for and against entitlement programs, these are two that you can use.