Many middle-class Americans go through their day-to-day activities worrying about their social image wondering why the ‘world hates them’ while taking for granted the food and shelter that’s handed to them. All is forgotten for the one’s that must suffer and wonder if they’re even going to find food and shelter that night. The American government is justified in continuing to help decrease poverty since they are protecting the general welfare of the society, giving those in need equal distribution of necessities, and maintaining the idea of equal human rights for all.

America was founded upon protecting the people and offering the security they deserve. When the government can’t achieve this, people take advantage to gain whatever they don’t have, which in some cases is food and resources. Not only are the lower classes harmed, but the middle and upper classes are too as they become victims of these crimes. In 2013, the most dangerous state in the U.S. was Tennessee with a rate of 643.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people (Blaine). The poverty rate for Tennessee at the time was 17.4% which ranked them as the 44th for income in the U.S. (Hess). Their property crimes rate is 3,371.4 per 100,000 people making them the 10th highest in the U.S.(Blaine). In contrast, Maryland is the richest state with a median income of $72,483 and a robbery crime rate of 169.5 out of 100,000 people (Blaine).The correlation between violence and economics displays the importance of funding for the poor. Valued workers and companies would leave due to unsafe conditions and poverty would continue to threaten economic activity. Not to mention, America as a whole could suffer greatly if it had not implemented some funding towards the needy. Hunger has the potential to  take a toll on anyone and cause them to commit crimes, since it is human nature to fight for survival. Justice would not be given by arresting the poor that commit robberies because they are desperately trying to sustain themselves and their families.

Those in low-income situations deserve an equal distribution of vital assets and enjoy the same resources as the rest of society. While the middle and upper class are able to gain access towards more than they need, the lower classes struggling in poverty cannot enjoy even the basic resources that all people should have in order to survive. Technology that the higher economic classes have is being used as entertainment, rather than a necessary tool. People that can afford expensive technology display the unequal balance of distribution of wealth between the rich and poor. According to the U.S. Census, 14.5% of the population still struggle in poverty (“U.S. Department of Commerce”).  Obviously because of the amount of money funded toward technology and finer organic foods to the higher income classes, there should be enough resources for all to be satisfied with. The problem comes when some lack a limit of what they want and cause the imbalance of wealth because of greed. It is the American government's job to equally split the need among its citizens without taking into account their economic standing. Then, once everyone has what they need, others privileged enough can get what they want.
As a society built upon the ideas expressed in the Bill of Rights, preserving equal human rights is a significant aspect. Nevertheless, people living in poverty have had their value as a human degraded since they have been victims of social injustice. The image of the poor through the perspective of the rich tends to shine a negative light while disregarding the true reasons for some circumstances of poverty. Even governors believe this, such as Governor Rick Perry of Texas who commented that “many homeless chose that lifestyle” ("Welfare & Poverty”). The truth in various cases is contrasting to this vision because of how some cannot work and acquire money due to their old age or diseases causing them to remain poor. Out of 100,000 adults that have chronic diseases, one out of four have not been able to consistently take their medication because of it’s high cost and one out of ten cannot afford both medication and food (Marcus). Either way, those who must choose between medication and food will be deprived of their human rights because they are not being treated or viewed equally by society. They are not able to freely pursue their own happiness like the rest of society nor actually live in that state. It would be unjust for some to have the opportunity to work, be healthy, and obtain money while others are denied the right to work and take care of themselves due to their lack of money and health. The responsibility of retaining the idea of fair human rights for all American citizens lies in our government system.
On the other hand, some might argue that funding would be better served toward the middle-class improvements because the poor deserve their lifestyle. This opposing side is shown by the 55% of conservative republicans who “don’t want the government to do much or anything at all about inequality” (Horowitz). In their eyes, the poor are selfish and unwilling to work since they are lazy. Even if some are lazy and not contributing to society, they are still people suffering through poverty, such as children, who do not deserve what they received. The lifestyles of the homeless cannot improve if they are not encouraged to work and in turn can help raise employment rates, lower criminal activity, and improve the conditions of a society as a whole. The government would be unjust in only offering help to certain people in poverty.

In order to achieve a decreased poverty rate, the government fund allow more funding to create organizations against it and improve the life conditions for the poor. The power to reach this rests in the amount of support given by the people. Realistically, poverty can never be completely eliminated nor can America’s class structure be, too. However, life conditions can be improved from barely surviving to having the assurance of food and shelter. People motivated enough through funding could find employment and boost the lower-class as a whole. Justice for poverty in the government would greatly benefit the whole American community because it could relieve some social tensions and enforce moral standards. Rather than being ignored and misunderstood, the low-income class could finally build up their own futures, not based on their limits of food but of their abundance of hope.

MLA Citations:

Alexander E.M. Hess, Alexander Kent, Thomas C. Frohlich and Robert Serenbetz. "America’s Richest (and Poorest) States." America’s Richest (and Poorest) States. 24/7 Wall St., 18 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Blaine, Charlie. "The Most Dangerous States in America." USA Today. N.p., 5 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Horowitz, Juliana M. "Inequality, Poverty Divide Republicans More than Democrats." Pew Research Center RSS. Pew Research Center, 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

Marcus, Erin N. "Access to Good Food as Preventive Medicine." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.

U.S. Department of Commerce. "United States Census Bureau." About Poverty. U.S. Census Bureau, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

"Welfare & Poverty: Texas Political Leaders' Views." Welfare & Poverty: Texas Political Leaders' Views. On the Issues, 15 Dec. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.