Argument Essay: The Welfare Debate What is welfare? Why is it so controversial? According to Webster's Dictionary, welfare is “the state of doing well, especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity” or “aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need.” The welfare debate is whether or not there should be more welfare money distributed verses programs available that teach the skills to help people get better paying jobs. Programs associated with government welfare should be enforced so that individuals do not take advantage of the system because citizens who are on welfare tend to rely on the government for money, giving away money does not equal aid, and responsibility needs to be taught.
Some believe that if there is more money distributed that it will help more people out of poverty. That is not necessarily the case because welfare is supposed to be a temporary government assistance to help people get back on there feet and not having to rely on it so much. Lawmakers and business officials believe that money should be earned more than given out, that’s why these programs that are a part of the welfare debate would probably help people get out of poverty described as the
…show more content…
Many families that do have a job outside of the assistance have to report their outside earnings which reduces their government assistance. According to the article, “ The Real Welfare Problem,” The New Family Support Act is the “most recent effort at welfare reform” this new law is an attempt to get single mothers off welfare in through a series of “job training, work requirements, child care subsidies, and child support enforcement” (“Real”). This relates to the programs that welfare is or has provided, but this also has nothing to do with not being able to work but some families simply cannot find jobs with good pay that would support an average sized
This is because the taxes there paying is what found the government to provide these programs. So since most Americans on social welfare programs live up to the stereotype of “abusing the system”, taxes payers disagree with the system and want to get rid of it. However, they do bring up a significant point on the flaws of the system because the governments spends large amounts of taxpayer money while producing results that are the opposite of what it is intended. According to “Statistic Brain research institution” the total government spending on welfare annually not including food stamps or unemployment is $131,900,000,000.
President Obama ran over our bicycle, issuing illegal waivers to welfare’s work requirements and taking the wheels off the program. The fact is, we never won the welfare battle after all. Out of the 80 different federal welfare programs, the ’96 welfare reform really only fixed one. A third of the U.S. population received benefits from one or more of these 80 programs in 2011. According to
She states this reform was introduced 10 years prior to her article being written and then asks, “But, what happened to these women and children once they left welfare?” (Blank, 2006). She immediately answers, “It turns out that those who left welfare did well enough to surprise the skeptics, myself included, but it remains hard to identify all the reasons” (Blank, 2006). Before the reform took place and even some time after, Blank was not for the welfare program.
The article addresses the myth surrounding welfare. Americans common belief government's aid enhances corruption among poor people has its roots in the past —even Franklin Delano Roosevelt considered welfare “a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” However, recent statistics highlights the beneficial’ effects of cash assistance for the poor. The welfare positively impacts the life of children, improving the quality of their nutrition and education. Moreover, in a moment of great economic recession the welfare is the only net that can support people in need.
If another person relies that you are getting paid without working, they are going to think that they can do the same. They are now able to collect money from the working class, for as long, as they are unemployed, for doing nothing. After a while, welfare recipients may get the mentality that won’t ever have to work again. Why? Because the government keeps robbing tax payers of their money and handing it to individuals who feel the need to do nothing because they know they will still get money regardless.
Welfare in the United States has become a very debated issue. Every person seems to have a different side when it comes to the argument. In an article in The Huffington Post titled “What Donald Trump Doesn't Understand About Welfare”, the author, Brian Hanley, makes a very persuasive point. He essentially writes two stories about two completely different sides of welfare recipients to show that not everyone is taking the programs for granted. Hanley makes a very compelling argument with the use of statistics, crediting backgrounds to each person used in the article, and invoking feelings of pity and anger to sway the reader’s view.
Recommendations: Since, Welfare-to-Work was designed on a state level, each state have their way of allocating the funds and it can be different from state to state. Therefore, we identified some issues in Wisconsin, Maryland, and general. Problem 1: Not having any work requirements for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients to receive benefits. Politicians believe the federal program would set up recipients for long-term use with no incentive of getting them off the program
During Reagan’s Presidency, he reduced many welfare programs that he believed were taken advantage of, such as job training and unemployment insurance benefits (Chidester and Knott). Reagan benefitted modern society through his change in the welfare system by reducing programs that related to careers so that people who were capable of helping themselves but chose not to do so, stopped receiving assistance from the government. This began a trend with following presidents to better the welfare system in order to benefit society. Ronald Reagan pushes the idea to adjust welfare when he says, “The irony is that misguided welfare programs instituted in the name of compassion have actually helped turn a shrinking problem into a national tragedy” (“Welfare Reform”). During Reagan’s radio address on February 15, 1986, he extended his thoughts on how welfare has caused poverty, a problem that was once shrinking, to explode across the United States.
No Benefit Required Throughout history, dating back as early as the 1800’s, the government has worked to reform the welfare system in the United States. The goal of reform is to reduce the population of government dependent people and to assist those who are dependent in finding self- sufficiency (Welfare Reform …). In July, Scott Walker addressed the need for reform in his budget proposal. In the revision, he omitted any wording that would limit the ability of government to test applicants and recipients of Food-share and unemployment in Wisconsin.
To me, Government handouts are ridiculous in almost all cases, simply because people know how to play the system and our people in power are too stupid to realize it. Our government really needs stricter laws and regulations on the social welfare programs, people should be required to pass a drug test, I say this because I have seen it with my own eyes, in Grand Marais more than once, people take their weekly pay check and use it for booze and drugs. Then rely on their food stamps to pay for their food. It's pathetic and it really angers me knowing that the money that they are using in food stamps to buy their food, is money that came straight out of my pocket. Granted I do know a few people who do work their butts off trying to meet ends meet and struggle to do so, those people I have much more respect for, and it doesn't bother me as much knowing my taxes are going to those
The question many people ask, should people on welfare be tested? First off, what is welfare, welfare is financial support that is given to the ones in need. The government has created many welfare programs, for example, TANF, Medicaid, Childs Health Insurance Program, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, Housing Assistance and many more programs. Federal government will provide the funding, but where does the federal government get the money from? The federal government will get the money out of the tax payers.
How do you think the average American feels when he pays taxes to the government, just to know that it is going to people who use the money to buy drugs? According to Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, Kansas, Tennessee, and Arizona only 10% of people receiving welfare are getting caught using drugs, the reason we only catch a small amount is the state government tells the recipients when they are drug testing them. In the technology we have today we can tell if a person is on drugs by three ways one way is urine, another way is blood and the last way is hair. These ways to drug test recipients are all efficient and effective. The most effective way is if you use hair to see if someone is using drugs you can usually tell for about 9 days it also depends on what drug they are using.
The social welfare has been a debatable argument for year in the U.S, many since the people have different beliefs in the welfare policy. Many time being is that the federal government had chosen to stay away from social welfare while also choosing to be heavily involved with it, making the federal agencies heavily involved in policy making. Since poverty was considered a problem, they believe that the problem would get better within time if there was a sudden change to make anti-poverty programs. In the great depression 1930’s the local and state government provided support for the poor, many assistances coming from churches were people would receive free food and agencies supplying the size of aid available to them.
Social Security has carried a safety net for millions of Americans for nearly a century. This safety net could be alternatively recognized as the debts of the father, bound to crush younger generations of taxpayers in America. There are countless propositions by academics and politicians alike on how to rectify Social Security’s craterous gap between their funding and spending. This gap has been recognized by politicians and voters alike since shortly after Social Security’s inception, even former United States President George H.W Bush stated, "There is no trust fund — just IOUs that I saw firsthand" (Koffler & President H.W. Bush).
Unemployment happens when individuals are without work and effectively looking for work.[1] The unemployment rate is a measure of the pervasiveness of unemployment and it is figured as a rate by separating the quantity of unemployed people by all people presently in the work power. Amid times of recession, an economy more often than not encounters a generally high unemployment rate.[2] According to International Labor Organization report, more than 200 million individuals universally or 6% of the world 's workforce were without a vocation in 2012 There remains significant hypothetical civil argument with respect to the reasons, outcomes and answers for unemployment. Traditional financial matters, New established financial aspects, and the Austrian School of financial matters contend that market instruments are solid method for determining unemployment.