psychick2006
New member
[FONT=tahoma, arial]
A popular social issue, the United States welfare system, has
created two opposing viewpoints, each including both positive and negative
aspects and opinions from many people. This public assistance program and
many similar ones are believed by some to be very beneficial to needy
recipients of our country. On the other hand, others such as myself,
believe that public assistance programs can be a burden on our society.
Moving from welfare to work is not an easy task. Sustaining this type of
success requires a lot of time and effort. In my opinion, in the long run,
the negative aspects of our welfare system outweigh the positive ones.
In a welfare state, the government offers programs to protect
citizens against economic risks and uncertainties at some, or all, stages
of their lives. All forms of financial aid and welfare services given by
governments to their welfare recipients come from taxes paid by the
citizens and corporations of the United States. In other worRAB, money is
taken from some people and handed out to others. The welfare system
includes any government assistance program where people’s eligibility is
determined by their financial need.
In recent years, policy-makers of the welfare program have come to
believe that certain changes should be made to our welfare policy.
Instead of just offering money to its recipients, the government also
offers job opportunities and training for these people on welfare. The
main goal of the welfare program is to get people off of welfare and into
jobs. The welfare program is meant to be only temporary.
Under the welfare reform bill of 1996, Bill Clinton added many
limitations on America’s welfare policy. The president’s plan proposes a
two-year lifetime limit on welfare for most recipients. Work requirements
and welfare time limits are two of the current changes to America’s
welfare system. Due to President Clinton’s recent Administration’s plan, “
welfare reform has given states and localities flexibility to address
welfare-to-work issues” (Relave 2). The welfare reform project is designed
to provide recipients with the training, child care and other services
they need to find jobs.
Under welfare reform, each state designs its own welfare program.
California’s program is called CalWORKS (California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to KiRAB). Under CalWORKS, those who seek welfare must also
find work. Current recipients are entitled to 24 moths of aid. There is
a five-year lifetime limit for those who are parents. If welfare
recipients have made an effort to find work, but have been unsuccessful
after their time limit, they will me moved into community service for up
to three years. During this time, they will keep their benefits, but not
a collect a salary. After a family has been on aid for five years, they
will be provided with child-only grants. As to almost any other rule,
there are exceptions to the welfare program, one of which is that it has
exemptions on the time limit for people who receive welfare. Some
exemptions include teen mothers, disabled welfare recipients, and
recipients enrolled in community college programs leading to employment.
(Relave)
As mentioned earlier, the welfare program of the United States has
brought about two opposing viewpoints; one of which is the belief that
welfare is very advantageous to certain people. According to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of [her/him]self
and of [her/his] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond [her/his] control” (Albisa 1). Welfare
helps fulfill this right to people who do not have any jobs and are having
trouble finding one. Welfare provides assistance against economic
insecurity through government programs. For instance, it provides monthly
welfare checks and food stamps, vouchers used for buying food, for welfare
recipients. In addition, the welfare program offers job opportunities as
well as job training and education. Limitations to the welfare program,
such as the imposition of time limits and work requirements, motivates
some recipients to seek jobs.
The welfare system tries to help people reach economic self-
sufficiency by “helping recipients to stay employed and improve the
quality of jobs over time through higher wages, better benefits, and
greater job security” (Relave 4). It is up to each recipient to either
keep their jobs or get back on welfare. Unfortunately, not every
individual living on welfare is willing to work. Some like the idea of not
having to work while still receiving monthly checks. These people take
advantage of our government programs. People like this become dependent
on the program, and take advantage of it as much as possible. Without
given certain limitations to receiving welfare benefits, “nearly 65
percent of the people on welfare at any given time will be on the program
for eight years or longer” (Tanner 1). Similarly, “children raised in
families on welfare are seven times more likely to become dependent on
welfare than are other children” (Tanner 1). Also, welfare can lead to
illegitimacy. Based on statistics, “there is strong evidence that
directly links the availability of welfare with the increase in out-of-
wedlock births” (Tanner1). In addition to dependence and illegitimacy, “
the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs
is a major contributory fact to the crime problems we face today” (Tanner
1). Welfare can destroy the family structure, for example, by replacing
the supportive role of parents, especially fathers, with the welfare check.
Even though the welfare program offers job opportunities to
recipients, many do not take advantage of it, mostly because of their
laziness and, as already mentioned, because of their dependence on the
program. Therefore “welfare doesn’t even reduce poverty” (Tanner 1).
Moreover, trillions of dollars were spent on social-welfare programs in
the last forty years, “yet the poverty rate today is higher than when we
began” (Tanner 1). Many other problems have risen from the current welfare
system. One is that “training programs can also provide an incentive to
stay on welfare” (Chavez 1). Since there is recently some lack in job
availability in our society, “training becomes critical in helping
recipients locate work” Mistrano 2). Without more jobs, recipients are
somewhat forced to stay on welfare.
Another weak side of the welfare policy is that welfare programs
cost more money now than ever before, at the taxpayers’ expense.
Unfortunately, “we have spent $5.4 trillion on antipoverty programs since
1960” (Congressional Research Service 2), and still the poverty rate is
higher than when public assistance first began. As statistics have shown,
“it is clear that we have spent a lot of money on a lot of poverty programs,
yet the poor are still with us- in greater nurabers than ever” Congressional
Research Service 4). As a result, taxpayers “end up spending more money
on programs that don’t work while another generation of recipients is
condemned to hopelessness, dependence and despair” (Tanner 1).
In contrast to having faith in America’s welfare system, the
reaction against welfare has stronger support, with only a few weak points.
One weakness is that not receiving any kind of government financial aid
can lead to an increase in poverty for individuals who are in poor
financial conditions. Even though this aspect is a weakness of being on
welfare, it is also a negative aspect of not being on welfare. This is due
to the possible lack of job availability in our society for certain people.
In other worRAB, if there are no available jobs out there, then an
individual in need can reach poverty, no matter if they are a welfare
recipient or not.
On the contrary to this negative position, an individual who is not
dependent on welfare is much better off in society. Individuals can make
more money working than living off of welfare. For instance, “a
preliminary study of the system by Mathematica Policy research has found
that about 35 percent of the 1,400 welfare families had left the roles and
found jobs that paid an average of $1,600 a month, nearly double the $800
average for those in the study who remained on welfare” (Peterson 2). Even
though $1,600 a month is not a tremendous amount of money, it is a lot
more than what a recipient on welfare would receive.
Similarly, the government would also save money. For example, “
with more people working, fewer will depend solely on the government for
support, and thus less tax dollars will be needed” (Ringel 2). Also, “
taxpayers will not feel as though they are being taken advantage of when
welfare recipients have to work in order to receive benefits” (Ringe1 2).
Working provides self-reliance for people. Most everyone would rather
work and support themselves, rather than be supported by the government and
live on welfare benefits. Living welfare-free provides independence sense
of freedom for individuals. In addition to feeling good about themselves,
people can feel proud of themselves just because of the simple fact of
knowing that they can live without being dependent on anyone or anything
but themselves. On top of making more money and having self-reliance, a
non-welfare life provides altruism; consideration for other people without
any thought of self as a principle conduct. People who “move off of
welfare and into the workforce will conserve altruism” (Ringel 2).People
become less selfish and more caring when they stop receiving public
assistance.
Welfare to work is an important topic, which should be discussed
while hearing both points of view. In my opinion, welfare is not too
great of a program. I believe the negative side outweighs the positive
side of the argument. Therefore, welfare should be banned altogether in
order to make our society a better place to live. According to my sources,
“the president’s plan makes recipients even more dependent on public aid”
(Chavez 1). Welfare recipients need less benefits, and need to be pushed
more in order to be motivated to seek and hold jobs in our country. Also,
job training is not guarantee that “recipients will ultimately take jobs”
(Chavez 2). In conclusion, “replacing unearned benefits with earned wages
is the only solution that will promote both self-reliance and altruism”
(Ringel 2), not to mention a better way of living on our tough society.
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1724 [/FONT]
A popular social issue, the United States welfare system, has
created two opposing viewpoints, each including both positive and negative
aspects and opinions from many people. This public assistance program and
many similar ones are believed by some to be very beneficial to needy
recipients of our country. On the other hand, others such as myself,
believe that public assistance programs can be a burden on our society.
Moving from welfare to work is not an easy task. Sustaining this type of
success requires a lot of time and effort. In my opinion, in the long run,
the negative aspects of our welfare system outweigh the positive ones.
In a welfare state, the government offers programs to protect
citizens against economic risks and uncertainties at some, or all, stages
of their lives. All forms of financial aid and welfare services given by
governments to their welfare recipients come from taxes paid by the
citizens and corporations of the United States. In other worRAB, money is
taken from some people and handed out to others. The welfare system
includes any government assistance program where people’s eligibility is
determined by their financial need.
In recent years, policy-makers of the welfare program have come to
believe that certain changes should be made to our welfare policy.
Instead of just offering money to its recipients, the government also
offers job opportunities and training for these people on welfare. The
main goal of the welfare program is to get people off of welfare and into
jobs. The welfare program is meant to be only temporary.
Under the welfare reform bill of 1996, Bill Clinton added many
limitations on America’s welfare policy. The president’s plan proposes a
two-year lifetime limit on welfare for most recipients. Work requirements
and welfare time limits are two of the current changes to America’s
welfare system. Due to President Clinton’s recent Administration’s plan, “
welfare reform has given states and localities flexibility to address
welfare-to-work issues” (Relave 2). The welfare reform project is designed
to provide recipients with the training, child care and other services
they need to find jobs.
Under welfare reform, each state designs its own welfare program.
California’s program is called CalWORKS (California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to KiRAB). Under CalWORKS, those who seek welfare must also
find work. Current recipients are entitled to 24 moths of aid. There is
a five-year lifetime limit for those who are parents. If welfare
recipients have made an effort to find work, but have been unsuccessful
after their time limit, they will me moved into community service for up
to three years. During this time, they will keep their benefits, but not
a collect a salary. After a family has been on aid for five years, they
will be provided with child-only grants. As to almost any other rule,
there are exceptions to the welfare program, one of which is that it has
exemptions on the time limit for people who receive welfare. Some
exemptions include teen mothers, disabled welfare recipients, and
recipients enrolled in community college programs leading to employment.
(Relave)
As mentioned earlier, the welfare program of the United States has
brought about two opposing viewpoints; one of which is the belief that
welfare is very advantageous to certain people. According to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to a
standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of [her/him]self
and of [her/his] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care
and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond [her/his] control” (Albisa 1). Welfare
helps fulfill this right to people who do not have any jobs and are having
trouble finding one. Welfare provides assistance against economic
insecurity through government programs. For instance, it provides monthly
welfare checks and food stamps, vouchers used for buying food, for welfare
recipients. In addition, the welfare program offers job opportunities as
well as job training and education. Limitations to the welfare program,
such as the imposition of time limits and work requirements, motivates
some recipients to seek jobs.
The welfare system tries to help people reach economic self-
sufficiency by “helping recipients to stay employed and improve the
quality of jobs over time through higher wages, better benefits, and
greater job security” (Relave 4). It is up to each recipient to either
keep their jobs or get back on welfare. Unfortunately, not every
individual living on welfare is willing to work. Some like the idea of not
having to work while still receiving monthly checks. These people take
advantage of our government programs. People like this become dependent
on the program, and take advantage of it as much as possible. Without
given certain limitations to receiving welfare benefits, “nearly 65
percent of the people on welfare at any given time will be on the program
for eight years or longer” (Tanner 1). Similarly, “children raised in
families on welfare are seven times more likely to become dependent on
welfare than are other children” (Tanner 1). Also, welfare can lead to
illegitimacy. Based on statistics, “there is strong evidence that
directly links the availability of welfare with the increase in out-of-
wedlock births” (Tanner1). In addition to dependence and illegitimacy, “
the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs
is a major contributory fact to the crime problems we face today” (Tanner
1). Welfare can destroy the family structure, for example, by replacing
the supportive role of parents, especially fathers, with the welfare check.
Even though the welfare program offers job opportunities to
recipients, many do not take advantage of it, mostly because of their
laziness and, as already mentioned, because of their dependence on the
program. Therefore “welfare doesn’t even reduce poverty” (Tanner 1).
Moreover, trillions of dollars were spent on social-welfare programs in
the last forty years, “yet the poverty rate today is higher than when we
began” (Tanner 1). Many other problems have risen from the current welfare
system. One is that “training programs can also provide an incentive to
stay on welfare” (Chavez 1). Since there is recently some lack in job
availability in our society, “training becomes critical in helping
recipients locate work” Mistrano 2). Without more jobs, recipients are
somewhat forced to stay on welfare.
Another weak side of the welfare policy is that welfare programs
cost more money now than ever before, at the taxpayers’ expense.
Unfortunately, “we have spent $5.4 trillion on antipoverty programs since
1960” (Congressional Research Service 2), and still the poverty rate is
higher than when public assistance first began. As statistics have shown,
“it is clear that we have spent a lot of money on a lot of poverty programs,
yet the poor are still with us- in greater nurabers than ever” Congressional
Research Service 4). As a result, taxpayers “end up spending more money
on programs that don’t work while another generation of recipients is
condemned to hopelessness, dependence and despair” (Tanner 1).
In contrast to having faith in America’s welfare system, the
reaction against welfare has stronger support, with only a few weak points.
One weakness is that not receiving any kind of government financial aid
can lead to an increase in poverty for individuals who are in poor
financial conditions. Even though this aspect is a weakness of being on
welfare, it is also a negative aspect of not being on welfare. This is due
to the possible lack of job availability in our society for certain people.
In other worRAB, if there are no available jobs out there, then an
individual in need can reach poverty, no matter if they are a welfare
recipient or not.
On the contrary to this negative position, an individual who is not
dependent on welfare is much better off in society. Individuals can make
more money working than living off of welfare. For instance, “a
preliminary study of the system by Mathematica Policy research has found
that about 35 percent of the 1,400 welfare families had left the roles and
found jobs that paid an average of $1,600 a month, nearly double the $800
average for those in the study who remained on welfare” (Peterson 2). Even
though $1,600 a month is not a tremendous amount of money, it is a lot
more than what a recipient on welfare would receive.
Similarly, the government would also save money. For example, “
with more people working, fewer will depend solely on the government for
support, and thus less tax dollars will be needed” (Ringel 2). Also, “
taxpayers will not feel as though they are being taken advantage of when
welfare recipients have to work in order to receive benefits” (Ringe1 2).
Working provides self-reliance for people. Most everyone would rather
work and support themselves, rather than be supported by the government and
live on welfare benefits. Living welfare-free provides independence sense
of freedom for individuals. In addition to feeling good about themselves,
people can feel proud of themselves just because of the simple fact of
knowing that they can live without being dependent on anyone or anything
but themselves. On top of making more money and having self-reliance, a
non-welfare life provides altruism; consideration for other people without
any thought of self as a principle conduct. People who “move off of
welfare and into the workforce will conserve altruism” (Ringel 2).People
become less selfish and more caring when they stop receiving public
assistance.
Welfare to work is an important topic, which should be discussed
while hearing both points of view. In my opinion, welfare is not too
great of a program. I believe the negative side outweighs the positive
side of the argument. Therefore, welfare should be banned altogether in
order to make our society a better place to live. According to my sources,
“the president’s plan makes recipients even more dependent on public aid”
(Chavez 1). Welfare recipients need less benefits, and need to be pushed
more in order to be motivated to seek and hold jobs in our country. Also,
job training is not guarantee that “recipients will ultimately take jobs”
(Chavez 2). In conclusion, “replacing unearned benefits with earned wages
is the only solution that will promote both self-reliance and altruism”
(Ringel 2), not to mention a better way of living on our tough society.
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1724 [/FONT]