Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
United States welfare system and its effects
United States welfare system and its effects
United States welfare system and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: United States welfare system and its effects
The welfare system in the United States has had many problems arise in recent years and there has been nothing done to try and fix these issues. Welfare is supposed to be a financial boost for people who are struggling to survive by themselves. However, there are many people trying to take advantage of the system and use the money provided by the government for certain items that are not necessary to live. The other major problem is with the inefficient government that is so divided ideologically that nothing has been done to repair the system because both parties believe that their ideas are more effective than the others. In order to resolve the ongoing dispute of the welfare system, changes to the process of screening recipients and how the government conducts changes to the system have to be made. Conducting financial checks on recipients must be done to ensure monetary funds are being used justly. Many people collecting checks from the government through the welfare system have used their money incorrectly either on purpose or by bad practices they have been taught (Headworth). Although there are people from state offices constantly doing interviews on welfare beneficiaries, there are still …show more content…
Although politicians believe they are doing the right thing by not giving into demands on the opposite party what they 're really doing is creating a larger divide between the two parties which in return allows nothing to get done (Berg, 2007). So all the problems in the welfare system are not being fixed because there are no new laws being put into effect to help change any of the problems. The Republicans believe the less welfare will be more affective then implementing more services like the Democrats want to (Berg, 2007). Since the ideological divide is so great between the two political parties there is no middle ground for the discussion because of this divide. This is the biggest
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.
...did not know which I think is what Welfare administrators do on a more systematic basis.
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...
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.
Swan, Richelle S., et al. "The Untold Story of Welfare Fraud." Journal of Sociology & Social
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
If only 3% is committing fraud, than 97% of families receiving benefits really need it. Is it humane to not aid the 97% that really need help? Once again there are solutions to decreasing the small amount of fraud being committed instead of slashing the program all together. There are already programs in place, such as GAIN or Grow, to help beneficiaries get help with resumes, get job training, go to school, and help the beneficiaries place themselves in a position for the long-term. Another solution would be to add more programs or ensure the programs already in place is
The reality that exists for these individuals is different than that which is assumed by many. People assume that recipients are lazy and that they do not want to work, or that they are very promiscuous women who have children in order to continue receiving help from the government. The realities for these...
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.
...rs in the system, there will never be any hope for those on welfare to get off. The welfare program has turned into a vicious circle that traps the recipient, namely single mothers, into a cycle of poverty. But before we can change anything politically or economically about the welfare system, we must first re-evaluate our beliefs and prejudices against those who did not ask to be put in this situation is the first place.
...earned dollars are not contributing to help the rightful recipients, but instead it is going straight to the pocket of individuals that are abusing the system and could care less about violating the law. Committing any welfare fraud is illegal and whoever chooses to break the law will be punished. “The Department of Human Services (DHS) may hold an administrative hearing, bring criminal charges or ask you to voluntarily sign a disqualification agreement if you are suspected of fraud. You will have to pay DHS back and will also be disqualified from receiving benefits for 1 to 10 years” (“Welfare” 2). Bringing criminal charges on recipients that are misusing and abusing the system is fair. It is a serious matter that needs to be taken seriously. It is stealing from the tax payers and taking away assistance from individuals that doubtlessly need the assistance.
Both sides, Democrat and Republican, have good points, but they are far from a solution.
Stryker, R., & Wald, P. (2009). Redefining Compassion to Reform Welfare: How Supporters of 1990s US Federal Welfare Reform Aimed for the Moral High Ground. Social Politics, 16(4), 519. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1921506111).