Welfare Abuse “Today, we are ending welfare as we know it, but I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began” (Welfare Reform). These words were spoken by President Clinton during the signing ceremony of his passed legislature that called for a drastic reform of the welfare system. After years of implementation, the current welfare system of the time, the AFDC, had been said to cause familial issues when it was meant to be providing aid to families in poverty. It had been accused of promoting fatherless children and providing the poor and out-of-work with reasons and motives to stay unemployed. Being funded by taxes, it does not make much sense to continue a program that hinders both those receiving it
Welfare America, home of the brave, the free, and the blessed! In this country many programs have been established to help those in need. One of these programs is welfare. Welfare is a public assisting aid, which gives citizens who live in the minimal level of poverty free money. This program is funded from the taxes payed by all working Americans.
But the way I think it works is that you have to help yourself others can only do a particular amount of help and then it is up to you to decide are you going to depend on them or are you going to do something about. Linda Bopp says that “Benefit levels must be increased… food stamp benefits for a typical working parent with two children in New York will have dropped in real terms by $24 a month since 1995.” (Haugen and DeMott 128). It is true that the allowance per month maybe low than what a family needs to fed them all but we have to keep in mind that food stamps are there to help us and we cannot just depend on
Over 35.4 percent of the United States is registered for welfare. An average family of four, that receives money from the government, can expect as least $500 in food stamps, and at least another $1,500 for whatever else, and top it all off, the government pays all bills and also for any medical visits for the family. So
Food stamps are government provided subsidy vouchers or coupons utilized to purchase nutritionally adequate food. These vouchers are provided to low-income individuals and households as a supplement to their income to assist them with affording these purchases. The federal government aids and pays for the Food Stamp Program currently known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through the state welfare offices, SNAP is one of the major offered nutrition assistance programs available.
The U.S.D.A has paid benefits to low and no-income families living in the U.S. since 1933. The method that was most recently chosen to assist these families was the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps, is a federal nutrition program that allows these low and no-income families to purchase healthy and nutritional food based on their spending capability. This paper will explain the history of food assistance programs, the current provisions for SNAP, and my personal opinion on the SNAP program.
While Camilla Lewis from Smith’s paper can relate to that “cheapness” she is forced to feed her two-year-old son processed foods, even though he has a digestive illness, she is left with no option except “low-priced items like chicken nuggets and instant mashed potatoes” (as cited in Smith, 2014). “Neglecting the inequalities that exist at the local level cannot only fail to solve existing problems but engender new ones” (Smirl4). Comparing the two leads me to believe that some families wouldn’t pursue a choice like Lewis’, that some would use the money out of their own pocket. Stephon Johnson (2013), a man who wrote about millions of New Yorkers facing food stamp cuts stated, “An average family of three will lose twenty-nine dollars a month.” Twenty-nine dollars may not seem like a lot, but if your already living paycheck to paycheck that money may be the difference of keeping your lights on.
Welfare includes programs such as unemployment, social security, health care, and more. Welfare was not created for a permanent solution to families in need of financial help. Welfare was created to help needy families get back on their feet though hard times. One main reason for mandatory drug testing is that taxpayers believe recipients should be drug tested to receive their money if they get drug tested to get a job.
2: Make less people unemployed. In Kansas, they were spending 5.5 million dollars on Food Stamps. Now they are spending 1.2 million dollars. This reform in food stamps would get people off the streets and working. It would save millions of dollars.
It is very difficult to think that the parents I work with do not see how others are also victims of the system. In one account, a woman “did not socialize with neighbors, usually kept her curtains closed, and generally did not allow her young daughter to play outside.” This ideology, which has been inherited from the days of Raeganomics, creates distance within the communities we work with and further isolates our clients. However I think that this propaganda worked to discourage the creation of communities and further isolate welfare recipients. When we contract with our clients, we talk a lot about their support system and community supports are really lacking in their lives.
The nation can have a better economic, they will have to buy their own food, and people will buy more stuff. The workers will have more money because they will not take away a lot of money like the take away of food stamps. Everyone working will be a better economic. According to the article food stamps have contributed to an overly dependent underclass, food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers, however many of those people are lying because they do have a husband to support them.
Social Security began as a promise to citizens of the U.S. as a means of income after retirement. Though the idea certainly had good intentions for our retired population, unfortunately many years later and unforeseen changes now have our country in economic uncertainty. The commitment made in 1935 by the U.S. to allow for workers to be taken care of during their retirement life after paying into Social Security seems to be quickly fading away. If some sort of reform of our social security plan is not decided upon in the near future our country will most certainly see a financial crisis along with the inability to provide payments to the recipients of social security benefits.
The SNAP benefit cuts will make it harder for low-income individuals and families to put food on the table. For instance, if The Agriculture Act of 2014 cuts SNAP expenditures by $8.6 billion over the next years, “anti-hunger advocates said the bill would harm 850,000 American households, about 1.7 million people spread across 15 states, which would lose an average of $90 per month in benefits because of the cuts in the food stamp program” (Nixon, 2014). There have been cuts in the past to the SNAP program that has affected many participants. The cuts that have been realized in The Agriculture Act of 2014 in the SNAP program has related cuts that were caused due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ended it triggered quite a commotion for its termination of temporary increases in SNAP benefit levels that were included in the SNAP program.
Every time a baby is born in the U.S. they are given a social security number. This number will continue to be important until the day that they die. Young people often do not know the importance of Social Security except the fact that it is used often for identification purposes. In recent years there has been a lot of talk surrounding the Social Security system and the current crisis that it is facing. Of course there are many possible solutions to combat this crisis, but none without their faults. As a society we need to accept that it is up to our generation to fix this issue. Reforming Social Security will benefit everyone living in the U.S. in the long run. Restoring Social Security to its once former glory is a necessity to benefit our further generations and to create a better future for the next generation of workers. In order to accomplish this lofty goal I propose that we increase the payroll tax cap to boost Social Security’s funding and reduce benefits for the higher income earners who do not need Social Security as much as others do.
Once Marin Luther King expressed, “Our social welfare system is so much more than just charity. Everyone must help, whether you are rich or poor. Everyone must have the belief that there’s always someone in a much worse situation than I am, and this person I want to help as a comrade”. Martin Luther King’s statement holds true that social welfare and health care should be the act of providing something for someone who does not have it. However, the modern debate with regards to social welfare and health care is that who should be providing the means. Political leaders across the world ask whether the state itself should provide universal healthcare for their people with the assistance of their taxes, or should the health care market and it insurance be turned over to the private sector. The two arguments come face to face with the way that Sweden and the United States of America have their social welfare and health care provided. Sweden has the social health care that many left leaning political leaders tend to favor more sense it