Today it seems as if everyone has a theory about fighting poverty, now
it is not necessary to be moving in the theoretical plane. Our country has had
successful anti-poverty programs that were effective back a century ago,
effective because they were based on these seven points: affiliation, bonding,
categorization, discernment, employment, freedom, and God. But a key element in
all of them is personal involvement and challenge, both material and spiritual.
If folks a hundred years ago could help others to move out of poverty,
and then turn their attention to the next group of immigrants and impoverished,
why can't we? Did they have more time than we do? No, even though we feel
stressed, their work days on the average were longer. Did they have more money?
No, we are far more affluent as a society now. Did they have more space in their
homes, so they could take in another person and we cannot? No, on the average
our houses are far larger. Did they have less of a drug and alcohol problem?
Probably not. They did have fewer single-parenting situations - there was less
illegitimacy and divorce then - but life expectancy was lower, so there were
lots of orphans and half-orphans. We're more spread out now, but our travel time
is not any greater.
What I learned leads me to wonder: Why can't we do the same? Were
Americans then a different people than we are today? Have we become so
corrupted that we don't care about others? Have we become so lazy that we are
unwilling to suffer with? I think not. I hope not. But we have become used to
having someone else do it for us - even though we know that a professional
social worker, with a case load of 200 or so, can't do much more than shuffle
paper. Bad charity drives out good.
My conclusion is that when we complain about a spendthrift modern
welfare state, we're right about the costs but we're actually stating the
problem backwards. The major flaw of the modern welfare state is not that it is
Welfare can be defined as “systems by which government agencies provide economic assistance, goods, and services to persons who are unable to care for themselves” (Issitt). The United States welfare system is an extremely complex and unique entity that encompasses ideas and concepts from an abundance of different places. Many people believe the current system is an excellent resource for the population, while others believe the current welfare system requires reform and budget cuts to become effective.
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
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.
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
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
because it gave us something to use for the future to prep us for all of the mistakes that can be easily
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
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.
The United States is sometimes described as a “reluctant welfare state.” I agree with this statement. Too often there are programs created by our government that, although may be lined with good intentions, end up failing in their main purpose. The government may, and hopefully does, seek to help its citizens. However, by applying unreasonable qualifying or maintenance criteria, or too many restrictions that bar people from even receiving aid at all, they end up with many more problems than solutions. Three examples of policies that do this are: Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and TANF, or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
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.
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.
...ican welfare system has many flaws and I have identified major problems and possible solutions/policy recommendations. We can’t completely dismiss government assistance because we are a land of the equality of all and should be proud to have services that help the less fortunate. However, we must identify people who misuse and people who become too comfortable. We can’t continue to fall deeper into debt by supporting people who are not making an effort to support themselves. Nonetheless, we should help and assist those who are constantly trying to become educated, skilled, and experienced enough to become self-sufficient. I will close with a quote from the article about welfare helping a lady survive while she was studying. Currently she has a degree and a job as a manager. “I had clear goals,” “I wasn’t raised to sit at home expecting a check to come in the mail.”
The welfare state is a political system that has been an important ideology used by countries that provide social programs to its people. One may say that the rise of the welfare state is caused by capitalist needs that lead to failure and end up hurting the well-being of its people. When the country is faced with a critical situation that hurts the people and the economy, the government is required to provide welfare programs that attempt to cure the consequences of failures of the country. For example, the Great Depression was the result of an economic crisis that caused the decline of people’s well-being. The society was faced with tremendous financial problems and the only way to fixed it was by providing an efficient welfare system, such as the New Deal. Among the programs certain acts passed, like the Social Security Act, provided benefits and compensation to workers and
In the case of the Trent and Joe, the interim social worker, responded properly and utilized the four phases of the problem-solving process which includes, the engagement phase, assessment phase, intervention phase, and evaluation phase. As a new interim social worker Joe is trying to acquaint herself with the teachers and learning the children’s name in the school. He was a little bit shocked when she saw how the teacher’s aide yelled at a little boy that was begging for his mother to come to his rescue. She did awesome job by properly engaging Trent. Joe makes good contact by meeting the client where he was and established rapport by briefly speaking and calming him down. But, relapsed when she said “By the time I count to five, you should
Most people aren’t familiar with ways our government is trying to lower health care costs of the homeless by putting them in houses, here is their chance to learn. “Housing First” approaches are aimed at reducing the number of homeless people in metropolitan cities, especially in USA and Canada. In Tulsa, the Mental Health Association operates housing models that are successful using the Housing First approach, but only with a success rate of around nine percent. These programs are able to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Special consideration is given to people who have mental illnesses. The main advantage of the approach is it makes an efficient use of the existing systems and services, and then eliminates the need for new ones. The approach has been said to lead to better quality of life, less alcohol and substance use among the beneficiaries, and less use of emergency services by the beneficiaries. Despite all of the advantages and purposes, the program has many challenges that make one think it’s not as successful as first projected. This could lead to program loss or the challenges being dealt with appropriately. If the government wants to use money to help end homelessness, they should put it towards resources and organizations that can, not towards homes where the homeless go to be ignored.