More handpicked essays just for you.
The welfare system arguments for or against
Welfare State in the UK
The welfare system arguments for or against
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The welfare system arguments for or against
The role of the welfare system within our society has always been controversial. This can be because of the numerous negative connotations that address who benefits from the welfare system. These negative connotations address that only the poor and unprivileged members of society can are benefiting from welfare programs. However, many scholars argue that in fact almost everyone in society benefits from the welfare system. This is the case of Mimi Abramovits (2001) who argues in the article “Everyone Is Still on Welfare: The Role of Redistribution in Social Policy” that almost everyone in society is on welfare. Abramovits (2001) uses Richard M. Titmuss's three-tiered social welfare system framework to discuss how everyone benefits from the welfare system. The three-tiered welfare systems are social welfare system, fiscal welfare system and occupational welfare. According to Abramovits (2001) all three welfare systems provide individuals with similar services. These services include “minimum income; replace income lost as a result of retirement, joblessness, disability, and the absence of a breadwinner; and underwrite the costs of health care, …show more content…
However, the social welfare system is the only one of the three that is seen as a welfare program that benefits the poor and that has negative connotations attach to it. However, the social welfare system also serves the middle and upper class. The social welfare programs that serve the middle and upper classes receive more funding and are seen in a more positive light than those serving the poor low income individuals. The other two welfare program are less visible to society and are not views as welfare programs. The program that help the middle and upper class are perceived as a right to the individual or recipient and therefore the individual is viewed as worthy of receiving the assistance (Abramovits,
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.
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
Linda Gordon's article is thoughtful, insightful and highly relevant. As governments slash poverty relief programs at all levels and as welfare-bashing reaches an all-time high, it is instructive to take a step back and look at how the current system developed.
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
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
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
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.
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.
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.
The poor are everywhere it seems. They are on the street corner, in the local 7 Eleven, and in the plaza. Sometimes I get sick of them and even angry with them when they pester me for money. I ask myself, "Is the best way to deal with poor, to give them money from my pocket?" It's obvious that other people have given them money from their pockets at different times. If no one had ever given them money, then these people wouldn't be standing here asking for money. The fact is, many poor people ask for money because they know they can get money that way. For most of the last 70 years our government has indirectly given the poor money from our pockets, through taxes and welfare. Not surprisingly, people have continued to ask for money. For most of those 70 years welfare fed the mentality that the best way to get money was to ask. I believe welfare as it was first started, failed miserably and created millions of dependents in poverty instead of independents above poverty. The welfare reform of 1996, I believe has helped the poor escape from the trap of poverty and is a more beneficial way of dealing with the poor.
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
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