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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
Works Cited
Katz: ix
Katz: 331
Katz: 331
Katz: 331
Katz: xi
Katz: 246
Katz: 246
Katz: 226,227
Katz: 227
Katz: 232
Katz: 234
Katz: 214
Katz: 18
Katz: xiv
Katz: 220
Katz: 262
Katz: 263
Katz: 278
Katz: 330
Katz: 334
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.
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.
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 addition, the poor are overburdened they always have been, especially in 2014. This is owing to the fact that the middle class is close to disappearing, which is forming a large gap between the poor and the rich. Furthermore, banking can be more expensive for nearly all poor people, whom are usually put in extreme circumstances where they are required to pay more taxes. And the poor are usually shut out from society and are left on the street as if they were a piece of garbage, which is why it is particularly difficult to attain a job as a poor person. Not many people in the world care for the poor. It is surprising to think that the poor had not been oppressed in 1791. Someone would think the poor have always had a heavy burden. The majority of America’s population is poor and they are ignored and portrayed as aliens whom we should have no contact with.
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
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.
With all the different economic opportunities, it is no wonder some Americans see procreation as a supplemental source of monetary income. During the twentieth century, we propagated the American Dream and placed pressure on Americans to settle down and start families. Prior to the twentieth century, many couples would have children, who would often then become labor assets; children would tend the fields or do various jobs around the home to save the family money by avoiding outsourcing. As the population grew, the laws of supply and demand triggered a need for new technology; this technology made it easier to sustain the population but also made the need for the extra children obsolete. This did not stop Americans from breeding.
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.
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.
The main ideal that keeps public policy in America extremely limited compared to other democracies is the desire for less government, a more limited government. The strong American beliefs in individualism and equality result in this desire for limited government, and thus limited public policy. American government programs are much less ambitious than those of other industrialized democratic nations. Programs in health, welfare, housing, transportaion, and many other areas are much smaller and less ambitious (Kingdon: 44). This is a direct result of the American desire for limited government. Americans don't want large programs in these areas because they more or less fear big government and believe it is inefficient and wasteful. Americans lean towards a desire for equal oppurtunity as opposed to equal results, and thus believe government should stay clear and let people either succeed or fail on their own. They believe that successful individuals are simply the ones who achieved more with the opportunities they were given, and that it's the job of the government to keep these opportunities equal for all, and not its job to see that everyone ends up successful. By taking the focus away from equality of results, America has become the victim of large income disparities as compared to other countries. In 1990, American households in the top decile of the income distribution had disposable incomes that were nearly six times greater than households in the bottom decile. Most other large industrialized countries showed upper incomes o...
Most people of the society still blame the poor for their own predicament. They believe that "if there is a will there is a way". However, they do not think about their government that might had made bad decisions and policies that could actually harm successful development. This causes of poverty and inequality are usually less discussed and often neglected. We must recognize the effects poverty could have on the society and seek ways to create better understanding and resolve the issue before it is too late.
...elp the working middle class from falling into poverty or to help the working poor rise out of poverty. Furthermore the working poor themselves lack the knowledge and power to demand reform. David Shipler says it best when he writes, “Relief will come, if at all, in an amalgam that recognizes both the society’s obligation through government and business, and the individual’s obligation through labor and family —and the commitment of both society and individual.” (Shipler 5786-5788) It is time for America to open its eyes and see the invisible working poor.
Do the poor in this country have a choice not to be poor? Do the less fortunate have the same access to opportunities as the middle and upper classes? Do government programs designed to help the impoverished actually keep them in the lower ranks? These are all difficult and controversial questions. Conservatives and Liberals constantly battle over these issues in our state and federal governments. Local and national news media provide limited insight to the root causes and effects of the nation’s poor. There is obviously no simple solution to resolve the plight of these often forgotten citizens. Most of us associate poor as being in a class below the poverty line. In fact there are many levels of poverty ranging from those with nothing, to those with enough to survive but too little to move up. I believe many of our nation’s poor are so by their own doing. I will share observations and personal experiences to support the argument that being poor often is a result of individual choice. One needs merely inspiration and perspiration to move up the socio-economic ladder in the United States. We live in the land of opportunity where anyone with the drive and determination to succeed often can.