During the 1960’s when I was growing up, children always came after marriage. If a woman had a baby out-of-wedlock, her family would frequently be disgraced. More often then not she would marry the baby’s father, but somewhere between then and now, things changed. Today, having a baby out-of-wedlock has become very acceptable. As a matter of fact, being unemployed, unmarried, or poor is no longer a concern. That is to say, expectant mothers can depend on government support if they are income eligible. The first problem associated with these programs is that for a large number of these women and their families’ welfare has turned into a long-term dependency. The second dilemma is that their welfare lifestyle has created many of our nation’s social problems. And the third problem is that the cost of these services has put a huge financial drain on our economy. For this reason, various government programs and policies were created to encourage these women to stop having children they could not afford. The most controversial policy, the “family cap”, was prompted by the failure of the welfare system to successfully assist the people it was supposedly trying to help. This policy is a law that limits the benefits a welfare family can receive when an additional child is born. The problems associated with this law include the ongoing debate over its political and moral implications. For example, politically, the “family cap” is believed to violate a woman’s individual rights. Morally, it is believed to be responsible for an increase in abortions. Either way, women need to assume responsibility for themselves and their families. In addition, men need to be held accountable for the children they are not willing to support. With that said, I...
... middle of paper ...
...opher Jencks. "Do Poor Women Have a Right to Bear
Children?" The American Prospect 20 (1995): 43+. General OneFile. Web. 1 Feb.
2012.
Gastley, Kelly J. "Why Family Cap Laws Just Aren't Getting it Done." William and Mary
Law Review Oct. 2004: 373+. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2012.
Houppert, Karen. "For Her Own Good – With the 'Family Cap', The State Says to
Welfare Moms: No More Babies!" The Nation 4 Feb. 2002: 20. General OneFile.
Web. 7 Feb. 2012.
Loonstra PH.D, Ann. Personal interview. 17 Feb.q 2012.
Tanner, Michael, and Tad DeHaven. ""TANF and Federal Welfare. Downsizing the
Federal Government." Cato Institute, Sept. 2010. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
"Study Findings on Reproductive Health are Outlined in Reports from City University of
New York." Women’s Health Weekly 17 Dec. 2009: 228. General OneFile. Web.
7 Feb. 2012.
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.
According to Zastrow (2014), women burdened by unwanted children cannot receive proper job training (p. 560). If women who are already struggling have children, they will not be able to afford childcare, resulting in staying home and not working. Therefore, these women and their children are trapped in a vicious poverty and welfare cycle. Studies have shown that women who are denied access to an abortion are more likely to face financial hardships and receive public assistance after the denial. Women denied the procedure are three times as likely to end up below the federal poverty line, in comparison to women who are able to obtain care (The EACH Woman Act (H.R. 2972), 2016). Additionally, the children suffer especially if they live have to live in poverty with unmet needs. If there are bans on funding, women do not get the final say regarding their family structure. They do not have the autonomy to limit their families to the number of children they desire and can physically and emotionally manage to pay for. Because its effects resonate beyond the policy realm, there has been discontent with the Hyde Amendment since it was enacted in the
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 ...
Imagine you are standing in a grocery line, waiting patiently for your turn, watching the lady in front of you put her cart-full of name brand food on the counter. You are thinking, "How is she going to pay for all this stuff?" Right then, she pulls out a book of stamps (not postage, either) and pays the cashier one hundred and fifty dollars. With the fifty dollar bill she has stashed away in her wallet, the lady then proceeds to buy two cartons of cigarettes and a magazine. Has this ever happened to you? Does it anger you to know that your taxes are going to a welfare recipient who has more cash than you have even seen in the past two weeks? If it does, then you are not alone.
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 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.
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
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.
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.
Society has engraved in our nation's mind that social welfare is pointless and something to be ashamed of. Through the media society has put a certain image of what welfare is. Most people believe those who benefit from welfare are mainly people of color and thanks to the media most people also believe that people of color are violent and frequently committing crimes. However, research has proven that the majority of traditional welfare recipients are non hispanic white citizens. The image one has been taught about welfare is that welfare is free money for people who are too lazy to work. However, welfare is much more than free money for the poor, welfare is any institution supported by the government. Some institutions that can be considered welfare are public education(K-12), CSU’s, medicare, medical, veteran benefits, public housing, food stamps, free or reduced lunch, public transportation, and the most popular cash aid. (Popple Leighninger). Almost everyone is benefiting from welfare. Welfare is not what society has portrayed it to be, in fact welfare was alleviate symptoms of poverty.
Welfare is a waste of money, ObamaCare is destroying small businesses, and ObamaCare penalizes hard workers.
President Bill Clinton had faced a difficult reelection in 1996. The Republicans for the first time in 50 years gained control of the House and Senate. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, was pressuring President Clinton to aid in creating welfare reform,as this had been a conservative goal for awhile. Proponents for the welfare reform, an example being Florida U.S. Representative Claw Shaw, introduced the bill by playing the ideals of liberty stating that, “The inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty was written before welfare. ... People came to this country to work. Now the question becomes, Are these handouts a magnet that is bringing people into this country? To some degree, they are”. In 1992 President Clinton also won his election partly due to his promises for welfare reform making him forced to work with the Republican Party as it would be unpopular to go against his own word.
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.
Even though government welfare helps some people in times of need, government welfare should be abolished because the government is trillions of dollars in debt and doesn't need to spend the money where not needed and many people abuse it. Because of those points, welfare is not needed and should be abolished..
America is the greatest nation in the world. That is a sentence that has been stated many times by many different people, for many different reasons. Whether those reasons are militarily related, based on global political influence, or even economically. However one reason that this statement is repeated over and over again is the fact that America is the “land of opportunity”, a place where anyone can come, work hard and make something of themselves. No matter your age, race, religion, gender or creed, in America you have the opportunity to make something better for yourself and your family. However this ability, this “American Dream” is under attack. Not only is it under attack, it is under attack from within, from our own citizens. The motto of America seems to be changing, from “the land of opportunity”, a place you can work your way to prosperity, to the land of giving, a place where you can lounge yourself through life on someone else’s dime.