Answer:
The Welfare State, as many authors maintain, is nothing other than the continuation of the Liberal State. That is to say, its intervention in the economic and social areas was only due to a momentary need to manage capital in order to favour one sector and avoid stopping the development of the capitalist state and its potential growth.
It is a measure that has certain reminiscences to those implemented in the 1600s with the Law of the Poor, which sought to change the idea of society and help the most needy.
The role of the nations, at that time, was to provide the best quality of life for men and women but without discarding the so-called vagrants, who later would collaborate with the labor force to grow the factories and companies.
All citizens have the same right to satisfy their needs as humans and enjoy the fruits of their labor. That is why governments, put in place programs, services and social plans that try to solve the problems of poverty, as well as provide help to anyone who seeks to collect their pension, have a home of their own and provide education to their children. It is these actions that make the social welfare of a nation real.
It was John. M. Keynes, who after the economic depression experienced in 1929, set in motion the Welfare model, leaving behind the current model of liberalism.
The Keynesian or Welfare State, postulated that one should intervene in the economy and society, with a view to complementing the functioning of the market, guaranteeing a minimum of basic welfare for all of society.
The new implementation helped the urban society to improve its quality of life and the welfare of the citizens.
This new Keynesian model placed four important factors within society, managed by the government: health, education, pensions and social services.
In this sense, the United States is not an exception when through numerous legal principles it seeks to maintain the welfare state among the most disadvantaged population, but always providing development opportunities without falling into the humiliating categorization and classification that characterized, and was highly criticized for that, the law of the poor.
