More handpicked essays just for you.
United States welfare system and its effects
The benefits and drawbacks of government welfare
United States welfare system and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: United States welfare system and its effects
More than _____ people across the United States received some form of government funded welfare assistance during ___yr (cit). Government programs include, but are not limited to health services, economic assistance, food assistance, and shelter assistance. The focus and design of welfare assistance programs is with the intent of aiding individuals with their essential needs. Its purpose is not to benefit deceitful individuals seeking handouts. Posed with the question, “Should people on welfare be required to work?” the response from a small group of my closest friends was a unanimous “yes.” Although, this outcome was not shocking, the degree of anger and animosity that the inquiry provokes was very intriguing, as well as the reasons given.
Some people feel that the majority of individuals receiving welfare benefits are simply lazy and do not intend to work to earn money for themselves and their families. While it is true that there are deceptive people amongst us within our society, it would be unfair to punish the honest along with them by enforcing a work requirement. Although it...
Issitt, Micah, L. Flynn. "Welfare: An Overview." Points Of View: Welfare (2013): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 5 Jan. 2014.
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.
From what I have read from the page it does seem that the distinction is still apart of our Social welfare like the example that the book gave was a single mother where it gives that she could be like that because of her employment status, or being a divorce parent which could cause there circumstances. The question that it gives "are recipients worthy or unworthy" it's basically that people who make bad choices are resulted in the need for an assistance are considered unworthy, but the worthy part is when a widow, or an elder had no control over the events over there personal decision.
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.
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
Welfare programs are an important part of American society. Without any type of American welfare, people will starve, children will not receive the proper education, and people will not receive any medical help simply because they do not have the resources available to them. Each of the three aspects of the American welfare system are unique in their own ways because they are funded differently and the benefits are given to different people. While support for these welfare systems has declined in the more recent years, the support for it when it was created was strong.
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.
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.
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.
Albelda, Randy. “Fallacies of Welfare-to-Work Policies”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 577, JSTOR Sept. 2001. 66-78.
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.
Being raised in a single-parent lower class home, I realize first-hand the need for welfare and government assistance programs. I also realize that the system is very complex and can become a crutch to people who become dependent and complacent. As a liberal American I do believe that the government should provide services to the less fortunate and resources to find work. However, as able-bodied citizens we should not become complacent with collecting benefits and it is the government’s job to identify people who take advantage of the system and strip benefits from people who are not making efforts to support themselves independently. I will identify errors that exist within the welfare system and several policy recommendations to implement a change that will counteract the negative conditions that currently exist.
Should the government help the homeless? Municipal governments should provide subsidized housing for their homeless residents. This could help the homeless population of Louisburg. By providing the homeless with an address that gives them the opportunity to get a job, get back on their feet, and also give them a safe place to stay while beginning a new life. Providing for the homeless should not be a charity for show but, for the moral support of human beings. Supporting the homeless does not mean we are encouraging them. Just because some are is homeless doesn’t mean they are drug addicts or just lazy. Many homeless didn’t ask for what they got in the end, whether it be death by starvation or being beaten to death. Death of the homeless could be prevented if the municipal government would provide a safe place for the homeless to go. The homeless people are PEOPLE too. The true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Therefore, the government should be doing much more than it is for the homeless population. They need help and understanding, and they need it from their government.
...hose that need them it is impossible. If the government is going to provide things it needs money to do so, and where does that money come from, taxes. Therefore the medication, housing, food and other benefits allotted to those on the welfare system are paid for by masses who actually do work and make something of themselves. Those receiving those benefits either don’t see or don’t care about the cost it puts on the rest of society, and fall into the hole of letting life come to you on the silver platter at the cost of someone else. Hard work is something considered antique, a thing of our grandparents with too many willing to forsake it for a life that isn’t of the highest quality but is of the lowest effort. The rise of the welfare state spells the end of America as we know it, the end of the “land of opportunity” and the beginning of the land of poverty.