For this book report on The Samaritans Dilemma by Deborah Stone will consist of two chapters I am going to talk about chapters 2,4. I will talk about what Stone was trying to say in the chapters and either if I will agree or disagree with what she has to say or if I can actually be in the middle of the argument and be for it as well as against it. I will as well be providing information from the book The American Welfare State by Brian Glenn to show why I favor a side in the dilemma Stone is talking about. Seven Bad Arguments Against Help In chapter two Stone tries to cover objections that people have against the welfare state. In the first argument she goes on and talks about that by helping people it makes them more dependent on other people …show more content…
Which to me is understandable because I make minimum wage in the job I have right now and for me its good as of right now because I do not have too take care of a family and do not have to many bills as a full size family so for me people that need to have a part-time and still need help I will be glad for them to get the help, but there are always the people who take advantage of the system like income taxes people will claim kids who are not theirs and get a lot more on their taxes, or they would apply for welfare and get a lot of money from the state from that. The Samaritan Rebellion In chapter four Stone describes how some people help others because they are forced to help them or it is genuine altruism and she describes it with some examples like the people who work for good paying companies can actually tell their bosses or managers and tell them that their family member is sick or injured and will give them the day off or let them get out early. But a person in a low paying job would have to make a choice between aiding a sick loved one or maintain their …show more content…
Conclusion In chapter two I agreed with some of the points that she was talking about for example, when she was talking about the people who would take the easy was pout will most likely take it instead of earning it by actually working for it like most of the people would love to do it to feel the satisfaction of accomplishing it without the help of other people I also agreed that there is some people that will have the feeling that they deserve the help that people give them because they cannot help themselves so depend on other people to give them the easy way out. But some people do really need the help and they don 't want the help but they cannot make it through with out the help from other people. And in the fourth chapter I agree with the Samaritan rebellion because some other people have it a lot easier than the ones who do most of the hard work for the minimum wage jobs and have no time to take care of their families and can 't take time off to take them to see a doctor either because they will lose the job or have no medical coverage and have to pay a lot of money to just see a
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.
The whole point of this essay is my way of showing the reader using Grunwald’s cites and examples like the personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald shows that the word welfare has another meaning, the real and true meaning. So the next time you rethink about should you apply for that benefit program or should you inform your friend or cousin about welfare. Do them or yourself a favor and just do it because after reading what I have to say welfare it will always pop up in the back of your head when a person talks about have a bad life or money problems I guarantee
O’Neill’s second premise is mistaken because we have a moral obligation to famine relief if we are in comparable a better position than those we are donating to. There is nothing wrong with working a full-time job just to donate to famine relief.
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
Why should we be the ones to pay for someone to sit around at home? The answer is one simple word, welfare. There are many reasons why people mooch on welfare, rather than going out and working. The only jobs these people are qualified for are minimum wage jobs. As Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed, worked at minimum wage paying jobs and reported the hardships that people had to go through on a day-to-day basis. A critic responded by saying, “This is simply the case of an academic who is forced to get a real job…” Ehrenriech’s reasoning for joining the working-class is to report why people who mite be on welfare, continue to stay on welfare. Her reports show there are many hardships that go along with minimum waged jobs, in the areas of drug abuse, fatigue, the idea of invisibility, education and the American Dream.
Dolgoff, R. & Feldstein, D. (2003). Understanding social welfare (7th ed). New York, Allen & Bacon
My overall opinion of this book is good I really liked it and recommend it to anyone. It is a good book to read and it keep you interested throughout the whole book.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
In fact, many believed the poor were just worthless idlers who were not even trying to better there own situations, but instead were taking the high roads away from taxes and worries (Document 11). There were many observed instances in which those in poverty, when given the opputinity to better their lives, chose to stay poor and recieve handouts. One such cause comes from William Turner, and English Physican for Lord Earl of Somerset when he recounts how poor folks often begged on the Earl's door but when Turner offered to help health wise, they chose to stay sick and beg (Document 6). Similar to modern day abusers of the American Wellfare system, officals became very angry with idlers who did nothing but feed off the wealth of the working class in the form of alms. They even believed that idlers should be expelled from their communites as they only bring economics down (Document 5). Many also thought that in order received any aid at all a person must be working. Reforms such as the Workhouse Test Act in 1723, though this occured later than the period of discussion, were a result of these opinions. This act, among others, required that people work a set amount of hours before they could receive any aid. Even the famous Cardinal Richelieu of France believed that the idlers were “good-for-nothings” who were restricting those who actually needed help from getting it while they were being lazy and greedy (Document 8). This opinion of certain poor indivudals being lazy and abusing resources remains amoung those in power even today in
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.
For the past year I have watched my younger sister struggle to support herself and her now 11 month old baby. She makes more than minimum wage. She has struggled to the point where she was evicted and now lives with me. I have also experienced struggling on low pay. When I was 18 I was kicked out of my family’s house, and I was only making $8 an hour. There were days where I had to choose between paying rent and getting my electricity shut off, just because I couldn’t work enough hours to pay all of my bills. It can be very scary to only make minimum wage and have to support yourself. There are changes that need to be made so that every person can live properly with any job.
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
Albelda, Randy. "What's wrong with welfare to work??Dollar &Sense. Pro Quest.Fordham University Library. New York, 19 Nov.2003
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
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.