Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History of welfare in america essay
Welfare essay history
Welfare essay history
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Myth of the Welfare Queen, by David Zucchino. Simon & Schuster: ¬New York, New York, 1999. 366 pages. Reviewed by Emily White.
David Zucchino is a former Los Angeles Times correspondent as well as a Pulitzer Prize winning author in 1995 for his feature writing in South Africa. He received an education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has since been travelling to dozens of nations reporting on social issues on a global scale, recently focused on Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, some of those pieces being when he was the foreign editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer. With his remaining time, he has written two well-known books, Thunder Run and, Myth of the Welfare Queen, both true counts of social problems viewed up close.
…show more content…
When writing Myth of the Welfare Queen, David Zucchino exposes the lives of two women who are honestly using the American welfare system in the hopes that families across the …show more content…
The myth of “Welfare Queens” is quickly debunked watching Odessa trying to support her four grandchildren on $400 a month and Cheri trying to raise a child and organize a welfare rights group while being unpaid. Odessa Williams, once on welfare in the 60’s, was only allotted $25 more a week for having to feed four other children. That little amount of money is clearly not enough to maintain a household and Odessa results to trash picking as a way to cut down on a shopping budget. On page 64, Zucchino depicts what the typical person receiving welfare benefits looks like—it certainly is not the image Ronald Reagan and the media feeds to the American people. In the state of Pennsylvania, only 32% of recipients were black while 57% were white. The passage describes those using the program AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent
For her book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, Barbara Ehrenreich, a middle-aged female investigative journalist, assumed the undercover position of a newly divorced housewife returning to work after several years of unemployment. The premise for Ehrenreich to go undercover in this way was due to her belief that a single mother returning to work after years of being on welfare would have a difficult time providing for her family on a low or minimum wage. Her cover story was the closest she could get to that of a welfare mother since she had no children and was not on welfare. During the time she developed the idea for the book, “roughly four million women about to be booted into the labor market by welfare reform” were going to have to survive on a $6 or $7 an hour wage; the wage of the inexperienced and uneducated. This paper will discuss Ehrenreich's approach to the research, her discoveries, and the economic assumptions we can make based on the information presented in her book.
Hays, Sharon. (2003). Flat Broke With Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New
She sets out to explore the world that welfare mothers are entered. The point was not so much to become poor as to get a sense of the spectrum of low-wage work that existed-from waitressing to housekeeping. She felt mistreated when it was announced that there has been a report on “drug activity”, as a result, the new employees will be required to be tested, as will the current employees on a random basis. She explained feeling mistreated, “I haven 't been treated this way-lined up in the corridor, threatened with locker searches, peppered with carelessly aimed accusations-since junior high school” (Ehrenreich,286). The other problem is that this job shows no sign of being financially viable. Ehrenreich states that there is no secret economies that nourish the poor, “If you can 't put up the two months’ rent you need to secure an apartment, you end up paying through the nose for a room by the week” (286). On the first day of housekeeping, she is yelled and given nineteen rooms to clean. For four hours without a break she striped and remake the beds. At the end of the experience she explained that she couldn 't hold two jobs and couldn 't make enough money to live on with one as where single mothers with children. She has clarified that she has advantages compare to the long-term
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2009. 545-49. Print.
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
The Limit of our Moral Duty in regards to Famine Relief. In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions of moral belief need to change. Specifically, he argues that giving famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react. cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135).
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact in modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at ends with the targeted audiences' popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core.
Morrison , B. (2011). Innocent: Confession of a Welfare Mother . (1st ed.). Baltimore,MD: Apprentice House
I don’t agree with this policy implemented by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The government fails to realize they are misleading the household and the mind set of the family members living in the household. This realization leads me to ask the question, does welfare have a color? Has the welfare line become the modern day Mason Dixon line? I believe that welfare was promoted as a way to help families in crisis, but the true purpose was to destroy African American families.
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
Magoon, Kekla. The Welfare Debate. Edina: ABDO Publishing Company, Inc. 2009. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Print.
Lurie, I. (1998). Welfare Reform in New York State. Poverty Research News. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: .
Welfare for the poor means minimal support, degrading, humiliation and continued poverty. On the other hand, welfare for the non-poor provides security and are based on legitimacy. The welfare system does not distribute benefits on the base of need but rather on the basis of legitimacy. Poor people are often view as less legitimate as compare to the non-poor. Furthermore, welfare programs for the poor are labeled and can be seen as disgraceful. As stated in the article there is much degradation and humiliations involved in some poor people’s programs that some try greatly to stay off welfare. Some who are qualified for the programs do not take it due to negative indignity and shame that comes along with it. In comparison to welfare programs for the non-poor much protective language is taken to cover up and camouflaged the wording of the programs. Another, important difference between welfare for the poor and welfare for the non-poor are level of government involved. Welfare programs for the non-poor are federally financed and administered with decisions on eligibility and on levels of support made nationally. Programs for the poor are usually supported by federal funds and administered as local programs. I asked my boyfriend what his thoughts were on social security and welfare he responded that they were two completely different programs .He stated
Stories are have been part of every culture, some of those stories teach a way a life, others show how us a way of culture, others show how Kingdoms have been built and just like that destroyed into pieces, but the Legend of Robin Hood is different, not only because it has been around for centuries but because the legend has changed so much over the years, and with that each Robin Hood movie is way different than the last one, mainly because the historic events that were happening during the filming of the movie were strong enough to change the plot of the movie and change certain archetypes. This is because a film will have greater success if the audience can relate or connect to the plot and the characters in the movie or story.