Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social welfare system us essays
Essays on welfare in america
U.S. social welfare systems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social welfare system us essays
Social Welfare: America Needs a Solution
A single divorcee’ mother of two is working a minimum waged job that doesn’t pay life’s cost of survival. Not only does this mother have to take care of herself, she has children that need shelter, nourishment, and stability. In order for that to be possible, help is needed. Most people, majority is fathers, have too much pride to ask for help because of the image. Being on social welfare promotes the ego dropping image that one cannot provide for themselves or their family. But is image more important than the life itself? Children are dying of hunger or dehydration because their parents cannot afford decent meals or purified water. Children are dying from sickness because their parents cannot afford a home that protects them from the cold. Some of these parents are working forty hours a week or more for minimum wage and still cannot afford the necessities to live healthy. Some parents cannot find a job due to lack of qualification. The government has provided resources for people who are disadvantaged; however, there are still problems that need to be addressed. Social welfare isn’t a discouragement, it is a helping hand. There is no reason why lives should be shortened because of the inability to access governmental assistance. Social welfare benefits America as a whole because it serves as a crutch for the financially handicapped and provides motivation to work harder for a better lifestyle.
Social security arose in 1935. Prior to that, the stock market crash of 1929 and The Great Depression caused family service agencies to become overwhelmed with high unemployment rates and relief needs. “Between 1929 and 1932, about one-third of the nation’s private agencies disappeared for lack of f...
... middle of paper ...
... and get paid more, and autonomy, having the freedom to be independent. Once having a job and proper education becomes a priority, one can eventually get off of government assistance because they have a strong foundation to live comfortably and happily. Then others can do the same thing. It is a cycle, more and more people come onto government assistance, so why can’t more and more people get off of it? The point is people can get off financial aid…with the right resources provided. If there are no resources, people will not make the effort to get off welfare because they have nothing to work towards, which makes it easier to rely on the government.
For some, welfare is a sign of weakness or idleness, but no one should be denied needed help. A life should not be cut short due to starvation, dehydration or sickness that can be stopped by the help of the government.
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.
The article “Back At Square One’: As States Repurpose Welfare Funds, More Families Fall Through Safety Net” was written by Peter S. Goodman. The article is about the struggle that people have all over the United States. Many of these individuals struggle to provide food, a decent place to live, and other common standards of living to their families. Goodman writes of a few women but mainly focuses on a woman named Brianna Butler who is struggling. In the reading there are many struggles she faces such as getting funding and getting help. Her major dilemma is that in order to receive financial assistance she needs to attend a four-week class, but no one will watch her child so she cannot go to the classes, so she does not receive the money. According to the article There are thousands of people who experience daily strife and when the United States economy experienced trouble many businesses had to lay people off and this created an even
It seems like the Welfare system treats its recipients with disrespect and shame to discourage them from joining the system. The people who made and run Welfare in the 1990s made Welfare into a blame game and forces recipients to solely blame themselves for their poverty. The moral prescriptions in individually getting rid of poverty according to TANF are the Work Plan/Family Plan. The focuses on work and family are contradictory because of how little time there is to get both goals done and each goal perpetuates the idea that it is the most important part of ending poverty. It seems like Welfare is more about getting people off of Welfare than eradicating poverty. There is a difference in the goals and that is reflected in how the recipients are treated and how Welfare is run.
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.
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 ...
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
With all the different economic opportunities, it is no wonder some Americans see procreation as a supplemental source of monetary income. During the twentieth century, we propagated the American Dream and placed pressure on Americans to settle down and start families. Prior to the twentieth century, many couples would have children, who would often then become labor assets; children would tend the fields or do various jobs around the home to save the family money by avoiding outsourcing. As the population grew, the laws of supply and demand triggered a need for new technology; this technology made it easier to sustain the population but also made the need for the extra children obsolete. This did not stop Americans from breeding.
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.
Welfare can be defined as “systems by which government agencies provide economic assistance, goods, and services to persons who are unable to care for themselves” (Issitt). The United States welfare system is an extremely complex and unique entity that encompasses ideas and concepts from an abundance of different places. Many people believe the current system is an excellent resource for the population, while others believe the current welfare system requires reform and budget cuts to become effective.
Being raised in a single-parent lower class home, I realize first-hand the need for welfare and government assistance programs. I also realize that the system is very complex and can become a crutch to people who become dependent and complacent. As a liberal American I do believe that the government should provide services to the less fortunate and resources to find work. However, as able-bodied citizens we should not become complacent with collecting benefits and it is the government’s job to identify people who take advantage of the system and strip benefits from people who are not making efforts to support themselves independently. I will identify errors that exist within the welfare system and several policy recommendations to implement a change that will counteract the negative conditions that currently exist.
This advertisement implies that the public perception of welfare recipients is a negative one. Unfortunately, in our society, there is an attitude toward welfare clients because many people apparently believe, according to the Ad council, that these clients are taking money from those who work hard for it themselves, calling this a hand-out. Our society appears to believe that welfare clients wish for, and have, an easy life, free of having to work. The reality of this concept is that people on welfare are not content to just get a check. This service announcement works toward changing this close-minded suggesting that most welfare clients wish to take control of their lives. They paint a very different picture of what these clients truly wish to achieve, rather than what is apparently expected of them by the public. In addition, they try to place a human face on the problem by stating from the beginning that most people on welfare want jobs and being sympathetic but direct.
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
From the years 2008 to 2013, the United States Federal Government spent over 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs (The New Normal: Welfare is Now America’s Most Popular Occupation, Husley). These government assistance programs have come to be abused by many Americans, and this is a problem that needs to be stopped. If the American welfare system can be reformed, it will reduce the strain it is putting on the United States’ already fragile financial system. In order to help the country out of debt and many Americans out of poverty, the American welfare programs must develop more vigorous requirements for citizens to qualify for benefits in addition to reducing the time period of assistance considerably. These changes would exclude citizens who receive disability benefits. This was attempted in 1996 when President Bill Clinton introduced TANF, (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), as a government program which provided aid to destitute families for a period of five years. During this time, at least one dependent had to find another source of income to maintain their benefits. This reform worked for a time, but the Obama Administration waived the requirement that stated one dependent had to get a job, and allowed individual states to set the mandate (Counterpoint: Welfare Programs Create a Sense of Entitlement, 2013). A better solution would be to limit time of assistance to 18 months and require dependents to have either one full time job or two part time jobs to maintain benefits, unchangeable by the states. All states should lower the benefit pay per month to just below minimum wage so people wouldn’t see welfare as a better way to get support themselves than obtaining a job. This along with other changes to t...
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..