Imagine you are standing in a grocery line, waiting patiently for your turn, watching the lady in front of you put her cart-full of name brand food on the counter. You are thinking, "How is she going to pay for all this stuff?" Right then, she pulls out a book of stamps (not postage, either) and pays the cashier one hundred and fifty dollars. With the fifty dollar bill she has stashed away in her wallet, the lady then proceeds to buy two cartons of cigarettes and a magazine. Has this ever happened to you? Does it anger you to know that your taxes are going to a welfare recipient who has more cash than you have even seen in the past two weeks? If it does, then you are not alone.
Many people want the old system for welfare changed and the new system enforced. Welfare has been pushed to the limit, forcing hard working people to pay more taxes, and leaving the government no choice but to make tougher laws to decrease the number of citizens on welfare. At one time a good plan for underprivileged Americans, welfare was constantly misused, forcing the new reforms and much debate.
The new reforms, put into action by President Bill Clinton, have succeeded in dropping the recipients off the rolls. Dan Froomkin, of The Washington Post, says that under the old system, welfare was handed out to anyone for any number of years. The new system, however, requires most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance, and limits most assistance to five years total (internet). Welfare was also misused by allowing mothers to keep having children, enabling them to receive additional benefits. Froomkin reports that the new reform allows states to establish a policy where welfare families are allowed no added i...
... middle of paper ...
...al treatment, exceptions, to normally strict regulations, could be made in extreme circumstances for needy people. Having one rule, with no exceptions, can only add argument and debate. Welfare is definitely a good program if truly needed, but if misused, can only punish the ones that need it. I guarantee, though, that if you look around, you will find some form of abuse of the government, whether it be through welfare, workman's compensation, or many other types of government aide.
Works Cited
Froomkin, Dan. "Welfare's Changing Face." Washington Post 13 July 1998.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Long, Robert Emmet, ed. The Welfare Debate. New York: HW Wilson Company, 1989.
Marks, Alexandra. "Less Welfare, Same Poverty in Heart of Appalachia." Christian Science Monitor. 6 May 1998:1
"Not So Welfare." New Republic 13 Apr 1998:7
Despite Hasselstrom’s personal characteristics of being a peace-loving, caring woman, the distance that she lived from town, being alone, and a series of unfortunate dangerous situations caused her to feel the need to protect herself. She states in the ar...
Concealed weapons have been a debate for years in the United States. Pro-gun people believe that carrying a gun is a necessary action. Anti-gun people argue that carrying weapons makes the world a more dangerous place. I am a proponent of being able to fulfill all of the rights that we are given as citizens of America. People should be able to carry concealed weapons. However, some people who are licensed to carry a weapon are being careless. Linda Hasselstrom is a great example of those who abuse the authority of their weapon; giving the pro gun people, as a whole, a bad reputation. I disagree with the manner in which Linda Hasselstrom chooses to use her weapon in a few of the scenarios in her story, A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries a Gun.
Ronald Reagan once said, “We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.” Welfare began as a relief program in the 1930’s to assist those suffering from The Great Depression. In modern times, this system’s abuse rises every year. Social welfare spending causes people to abuse their free money; our government needs to revise the length of time for the benefits and who can receive this money.
The unsustainable growth of welfare is becoming a big issue in the United States. The government is spending money it does not have to support people it cannot afford. Welfare only adds more debt to our country. Welfare could be a wonderful aid if people used it with justice, but welfare only creates lazy dependent people. Welfare should only be a resource someone can turn to when you are out of all your options, and are in desperate need of help. In this day and age it has turned into a way of life for some people. Too many Americans would rather turn to government assistance than to get back on their feet themselves. Welfare is being taken advantage of.
Welfare can be defined as health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being; Prosperity; and Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need (Merriam-Webster, 2014). It can be very beneficial to people in need of it. Tim Prenzler stated that, “Welfare systems are often seen as providing a ‘safety net’ that prevents citizens falling below a minimum standard of living (2012, p2). Everyone is able to use is if they are in need of it. People have successfully used welfare to get out of their slum, and started to support themselves. Others have decided to not try to get out of that slum, and live off that welfare. They decided that they didn’t have to try, and let the government support them. Welfare is a good tool for people to get back on their feet, but shouldn’t be that persons steady income.
Welfare has been a safety net for many Americans, when the alternative for them is going without food and shelter. Over the years, the government has provided income for the unemployed, food assistance for the hungry, and health care for the poor. The federal government in the nineteenth century started to provide minimal benefits for the poor. During the twentieth century the United States federal government established a more substantial welfare system to help Americans when they most needed it. In 1996, welfare reform occurred under President Bill Clinton and it significantly changed the structure of welfare. Social Security has gone through significant change from FDR’s signing of the program into law to President George W. Bush’s proposal of privatized accounts.
...rs in the system, there will never be any hope for those on welfare to get off. The welfare program has turned into a vicious circle that traps the recipient, namely single mothers, into a cycle of poverty. But before we can change anything politically or economically about the welfare system, we must first re-evaluate our beliefs and prejudices against those who did not ask to be put in this situation is the first place.
China is located in East Asia. Ancient China is surrounded by Gobi Desert in the north, the Pacific Ocean in the east, the Himalayan Mountains in the southwest, and the Taklimakan desert in the west. This land has a wide variation of animals because of the different habitats provided for them. Most farming was done in the very fertile lands of the Yangtze valley. Present China is much bigger than Ancient China, which means that over time, the kings and different dynasties went gaining more and more land and wealth.
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
The excerpt of “A Peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carries A Gun” is a personal account from Linda Hasselstrom on why she feels the need to carry a gun as well as, why other women should feel the need to own a gun. Hasselstrom uses rhetorical appeals in order to justify her means of security, however she fails due to her inability to provide a substantial amount of background knowledge.
President Obama issued illegal waivers to welfare’s work requests and steamed line the program to allow easier access to it. But the true fact is that America never won the welfare fight after all. Out of the 80 different federal welfare plans, the ’96 welfare reform really only really fixed one. A third of the United States population received assistances from one or more of these 80 welfare programs in 2011. According to several different reports the Department of Agriculture said that one program alone, the food stamps program, gave benefits to a record breaking 47.7 million Americans in the last month of 2012, and these are we paid for (working class) benefits those millions didn’t have to work to receive.
The House of the Seven Gables is often characterized as a horror story, because of the presence of the family curse. The mysterious family deaths, the misfortune and decline of the Pyncheon name are attributed to the dying man’s words. Even so, the disastrous streak is broken, by a few who were willing to face adversity with faith, love and joy. A few occurrences, such as Alice Pyncheon’s plague, cannot be explained as the result of her own avarice. However, while the author makes several hypothetical references to the supernatural, we are inclined to believe that the “curse” of the Pyncheons is not paranormal but a result of the wickedness of human nature that characterizes each and every man on earth.
My reaction to people who want to remain on welfare is, striving to look for a better future not for themselves but for their families too. They want to change their life and they don’t want to wait for the opportunity to come to their feet. They want to change however they can feel embarrass and ashamed that they have reached to that point however welfare gives them another opportunity within the community to stand on their own two feet. Its okay to receive welfare because there here to help those, who lack motivation in
The welfare of the people in America is put in the hands of the public administrators and political leaders of the United States. These public administrators and political leaders are voted into office to promote new bills and come up with solutions that will be in the best interest of the public’s welfare. When the subject of welfare is debated the first thought that comes to mind is giving underprivileged and disadvantaged people money to help them get out of a financial predicament and/or temporary unemployment. The welfare of the middle and upper class is not as common because the fact that people collect financial support from their employment. There are several biased assumptions about the welfare program in America that leave the subject open for discussion. Such as food stamps, and how low-income Americans are given our taxpaying money to provide food for their households. I’m against the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and what toll it’s putting on the taxpayers of America.
History indeed does seem to repeat itself in The House of the Seven Gables, and the sins of one generation tended to visit the next generations. This theme could also be the “moral” of The House of the Seven Gables, and Nathaniel Hawthorne does, on lots of occasions, connect the sins of Colonel Pyncheon to the consecutive misfortunes of the Pyncheon family. With plenty of pages about sins and how they were getting passes on, I can indeed say that the sins of one generation impose on the next