Sharon Hays argues that welfare reform policymakers were legislating moral prescriptions for women in poverty who were to take on Welfare aid. I think it could be argued that moral prescriptions on the lives of Welfare recipients was purposeful. Politicians felt Welfare needed to change and help recipients become more self-sufficient over time. This would save money as time went on but would also be a measure of success if less people were on Welfare as time went on. To make Welfare more temporary, inefficiencies had to be addressed and solved. Welfare legislators decided to put the inefficiencies and prescriptions on the recipients themselves and not take into account any other barriers that could be preventing poor individuals and families from getting out of poverty. Moral prescriptions make poverty a cause and solution affair where the cause is moral negligence and the solution is a set of rules and regulations aimed to change morality which will gain people the self-esteem and knowledge to get a job and get out of Welfare.
The first part of the moral prescriptions described in Flat Broke With Children is the Work Plan/Family Plan that is an important part of Welfare reform. (Hays, 23) The Work Plan and the Family Plan are two different means of getting people out of Welfare that contradict themselves at times. The Work Plan and Family Plan have completely different moral goals in the end so it makes sense that they would contradict. The Work Plan is aimed to get women jobs and the Family Plan is aimed to bring families together and extort money from fathers who have abandoned their children. The Work Plan values independence and productivity while the Family Plan values community and commitment to others. (Hays, 23) Bot...
... middle of paper ...
...did not know which I think is what Welfare administrators do on a more systematic basis.
It seems like the Welfare system treats its recipients with disrespect and shame to discourage them from joining the system. The people who made and run Welfare in the 1990s made Welfare into a blame game and forces recipients to solely blame themselves for their poverty. The moral prescriptions in individually getting rid of poverty according to TANF are the Work Plan/Family Plan. The focuses on work and family are contradictory because of how little time there is to get both goals done and each goal perpetuates the idea that it is the most important part of ending poverty. It seems like Welfare is more about getting people off of Welfare than eradicating poverty. There is a difference in the goals and that is reflected in how the recipients are treated and how Welfare is run.
The whole point of this essay is my way of showing the reader using Grunwald’s cites and examples like the personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald shows that the word welfare has another meaning, the real and true meaning. So the next time you rethink about should you apply for that benefit program or should you inform your friend or cousin about welfare. Do them or yourself a favor and just do it because after reading what I have to say welfare it will always pop up in the back of your head when a person talks about have a bad life or money problems I guarantee
Hays found that initially most welfare workers were optimistic and even excited about the changes. Most workers felt that the Act represented real progress and allowed for positive changes which would positively impact the lives of their clients. Hays spoke to one welfare who said that welfare reform “offered the training and services necessary to 'make our clients' lives better, to make them better mothers, to make them more productive.'” But as she was soon to find out, welfare reform, while it did have a positive impact on the lives of some welfare clients, made the lives of most clients more difficult, not to mention the stress that it caused for the welfare workers who had to deal with the often confusing and illogical new rules.
Having set the stage, the welfare reformers began the attack on the welfare state by targeting AFDC, the most vulnerable and least popular welfare program. Drawing on social science theories that blamed poverty on the values and behavior of the poor, the reformers put forward the belief that social problems stemmed from a “culture of poverty” that promoted “defective” values and “deviant” behavior.
One way Michael Burke, in his article “Welfare reform 20 years later: what worked, what didn’t,” effectively argues the importance of knowing the state of which the welfare reform is currently in is by appealing to logos and pathos. Throughout the article, Burke provides statistics and history on what welfare is and why it was created in the first place. He states “In establishing the program, the federal government, for the first time, took responsibility for helping children with a parent who was dead, gone or otherwise incapacitated...from 1996 to 2000, employment rates among never-married mothers shot from 63% to 76%, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).” By providing statistics he was able to provide
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
As of 2012, roughly thirty five percent of the population in the United States was living with some sort of government assistance. The Welfare Reform Act was passed into law in 1996. Many of the country’s leaders promised to end welfare with this act. (“Welfare Reform”) This act ended the legal entitlement to welfare benefits. The bill also created time limits and work requirements for participation in the program. Welfare in the United States should be reformed because reform decreases poverty, increases independence in the country’s citizens, and increases the quality of life for former welfare recipients.
It is a commonly known fact that a large percentage of Americans are living on and relying on welfare, which is a government program that provides financial aid to individuals or groups of people who cannot support themselves. Welfare began in the 1930’s during the Great Depression. There are several types of assistance offered by the government, which include healthcare, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. The type of welfare and amounts given depend on the individual, and how many children they have. There are many people who honestly need the government assistance, but there are also many who abuse the privilege.
The myth of “Welfare Queens” is quickly debunked watching Odessa trying to support her four grandchildren on $400 a month and Cheri trying to raise a child and organize a welfare rights group while being unpaid. Odessa Williams, once on welfare in the 60’s, was only allotted $25 more a week for having to feed four other children. That little amount of money is clearly not enough to maintain a household and Odessa results to trash picking as a way to cut down on a shopping budget. On page 64, Zucchino depicts what the typical person receiving welfare benefits looks like—it certainly is not the image Ronald Reagan and the media feeds to the American people. In the state of Pennsylvania, only 32% of recipients were black while 57% were white. The passage describes those using the program AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent
The morality of social welfare systems, or the morality of crafting laws to aid American citizens in poverty, is a subject that (like myriad ethical issues) is hotly debated to say the least. For example, some opponents of social welfare institutions maintain the view that such programs "increase the reward or reduce the penalties" of poverty; thereby ostensibly making an impoverished state appealing even to people who might initially have been motivated to earn a living by conventional means. In other words, welfare programs (according to opponents) encourage otherwise productive individuals to embrace laziness, for basic human needs would be met by such institutions, eliminating the need to work at all. Those opposed to social welfare plans have also been known to claim that an "unfair burden is placed upon workers who must pay for the system." When one considers the above opposing views, it would then stand to reason that proponents of social welfare programs might maintain that it is the moral responsibility of working citizens to provide assistance and funding for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Food Stamp program, or the like. This supposition is confirmed upon examination of the notion that, when basic human needs such as "food, housing, and medical care" are not met, one is consequently rendered unable to uphold any level of social freedom. Given the above information, one can safely deduce that modern supporters of social welfare organizations are under the impression that such programs provide the impoverished masses with the means by which to obtain the level of general well-being vital to acquiring work in the first place.
Living in the United States most people rely on the government to construct our society to better the people. The gap between rich and poor in our society significantly varies. In America, the government offers special programs to help those who fall below the poverty line. This is well known as welfare. The word welfare comes from a positive definition known as “well-being”, but most Americans would debate that welfare has become a disaster to our society as they increased welfare dependency, illegitimate babies, and family break-ups. In fact I agree with these clams, poverty programs have been abused by many Americans, causing more pressures and strains to American welfare.
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.
O’Campo, Patricia “Welfare Reform and Women’s Health: Review of the Literature and Implications for State Policy.” Journal of Public Health Policy. Vol. 19.No. 4 JSTOR (1998), 420-46.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
Welfare for the poor means minimal support, degrading, humiliation and continued poverty. On the other hand, welfare for the non-poor provides security and are based on legitimacy. The welfare system does not distribute benefits on the base of need but rather on the basis of legitimacy. Poor people are often view as less legitimate as compare to the non-poor. Furthermore, welfare programs for the poor are labeled and can be seen as disgraceful. As stated in the article there is much degradation and humiliations involved in some poor people’s programs that some try greatly to stay off welfare. Some who are qualified for the programs do not take it due to negative indignity and shame that comes along with it. In comparison to welfare programs for the non-poor much protective language is taken to cover up and camouflaged the wording of the programs. Another, important difference between welfare for the poor and welfare for the non-poor are level of government involved. Welfare programs for the non-poor are federally financed and administered with decisions on eligibility and on levels of support made nationally. Programs for the poor are usually supported by federal funds and administered as local programs. I asked my boyfriend what his thoughts were on social security and welfare he responded that they were two completely different programs .He stated
To wrap up my essay, I will simply say that people who continue to talk about welfare in ways that it should be taken away or controlled have not educated themselves enough to fully understand what it is they are talking about. I believe that everyone in the world serves a purpose. The wealthy are not the only people who should have the right to enjoy life. People on welfare, may need help but at least they are trying. To say they are all failures is wrong. The majority of women on welfare face so many problems. People make ludicrous preconceptions about these women. People should open their eyes and realize what really goes on in the world instead of living in on a cloud.