Since we have a culture that is so dependent on the government for support and assistance, if services were reduced due to no funds, how do you think that would effect our society?
Just like any other species, the notion of survival of the fittest is likely the theme of any demise of governmental assistance. As the state of the economy is becoming less stable in some regions, many more are resorting to government services provided for low-income populations. This writer is familiar with people whom were getting by on limited amounts of assistance and then it stopped. The supply of resources was restricted and panic resulted. When chaos evolves, doing what is the critical first step for survival evolves. When many are fighting for the same resources, scarcity is likely to develop. This would force people to become creative and push for alternatives. If we look at food stamps, for example, in Michigan, shoppers can purchase anything that can be eaten. Merchants glean value from this ideology. The companies that have products stocked on their shelves bring in profit. If suddenly that shopper no longer shows up with his or her Bridge Card, then the food that might otherwise be selected will stay on the shelf. That bread or dairy company will therefore not sell as many products, for example. If all people only can get by with what money, they have in their pockets, then doctors and childcare providers will have less patients and clients. Grocers won't do as well, and all the other businesses in a community that benefit from governmental endorsements will be affected.
Those who have disabilities and received services and support for employment might be left unemployed and fall behind with no revenue, due to missing hearing aids, wheelchairs ...
The effects of limited government support in society are discussed.