Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for the welfare state
Arguments in favor of the welfare state
Pro welfare arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for the welfare state
Arguments in favor of the welfare state
Pro welfare arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The idea of welfare might represent that there is always a way to make things work, even when times are tough. The idea that we can overcome difficult circumstances and achieve success
In Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Barbara Ehrenreich asks the question “How does anyone live on wages available to the unskilled?”(1). Ehrenreich investigates by going undercover as a low-wage worker to understand how workers ‘get by’ and see the effects of recent welfare reform aimed to help them. Ehrenreich, over the course of two years, worked unskilled labor intensive jobs in three different cities. Frequently, just to afford bare living expenses, Ehrenreich had to possess two jobs, which took a toll of her health. After completing her stint as a low-wage worker, she comes to the conclusion that they are treated as disposable by employers, often being manipulated or threatened to be compliant about their meager wages
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act abolished Federal Cash Assistance and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs, all of which many believed locked people in the perpetual cycle of state- assisted poverty. There were three research findings on the “efficacy of the 1996 reform, all gave a summary of the most influential studies conducted by US researchers. Nearly all reached the same conclusions: First, Welfare Reform under the Clinton administration did result in a significant shift into new employment by the long-term welfare recipients. Secondly, the overall strong growth conditions were linked to the U.S. during the late 1900s. Third, the growth in income and employment experienced by the American poor welfare to work transition
In the United States’ history during the 1930’s and 1940’s, the federal government worked hard to respond and find solutions for the citizens amid the Great Depression that had risen. That period caused mass unemployment, many struggled financially, and many worried if they would even have enough food to provide for themselves and their families for just the next meal. These federal responses to aid during these hard times changed the role of the government and left a legacy that still influences us today. Most notably of these changes by the government are the impact of growth, power, and the welfare system. The growth of the government during this time was quite exceptional.
The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was a landmark legislation that drastically altered how the U.S. government approached poverty. Passed during Bill Clinton's presidency, the reform aimed to decrease the dependency on state support by promoting self-reliance and employment among the populace. This initiative gave birth to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, despite the seemingly positive intentions, the Act arguably created a plethora of issues. In fact, many have criticized the reform for its unrealistic assumptions about the reality of poverty in America.
Hanley wrote this article in order to persuade his readers that welfare is a very crucial part of some people’s lives, and Donald Trump should not cut its funding. In order to achieve this, Hanley makes use of statistics and facts throughout the article explaining how beneficial social welfare truly is. He conducted research and credited most of his findings to historian Michael B. Katz of the University of Pennsylvania. In the article, he states that there was a 60% decline of people living in poverty between 1960 and 1980 due to social welfare. He also states that between these
In the 1980s, there was a phenomenon in American war on poverty, “feminization of poverty.” It meant that typical Americans living in poverty were a single mother and her young children. Through a case of “welfare queen” who used dozens of aliases to collect a small fortune, the president lost his belief to the poor and undermined efforts to help the poor. The serious action of Reagan was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. “Food Stamps, school lunch programs, public housing subsidies, and job training took major hit.”
The term “welfare” generally has a negative connotation when being discussed because it represents lack of resources. Many people think that it’s recipients may be “milking the system” or “lazy” and don’t want to go out and earn their living however, welfare can and should be used as a positive asset to society. However, it tends to be used as a crutch for longer than appropriate but, after conducting in depth research it has become obvious that this is rarely the recipients defect. The government creates these programs that are designed to help those in need and they generally do for some amount of time. But when an individual strives to obtain a higher paying job, it doesn’t even have to be much of a pay increase, they are at risk of losing for example, their rent assistance.
The upper classes can rest (fairly) assured that most desperately poor mothers won’t come knocking on their doors, asking for cash, a meal, a place to stay, or the loan of a car. But many poor mothers will (reluctantly) knock on the doors of the working-poor and working-class people who are their friends and relatives. It is there people who will share their homes, their food, and their incomes and provide practical help with childcare and transportation. There good deeds won’t appear on any income tax forms, welfare case reports, or analyses of charitable spending. But this burden on low-income working people will be one of the very real, and largely invisible, costs of welfare reform.
These critics also insisted the length of time a person can be on this program needed to be limited. They feared that individuals would abuse the assistance they received by intentionally not seeking employment and having more children to receive larger pay-outs. This controversial issue also brought up an important issue; the concern is that welfare caused individuals to continue their struggle rather than assist. They insisted Welfare hindered individuals and did more harm than good. They believed Welfare caused more individuals to live in poverty
During Reagan’s Presidency, he reduced many welfare programs that he believed were taken advantage of, such as job training and unemployment insurance benefits (Chidester and Knott). Reagan benefitted modern society through his change in the welfare system by reducing programs that related to careers so that people who were capable of helping themselves but chose not to do so, stopped receiving assistance from the government. This began a trend with following presidents to better the welfare system in order to benefit society. Ronald Reagan pushes the idea to adjust welfare when he says, “The irony is that misguided welfare programs instituted in the name of compassion have actually helped turn a shrinking problem into a national tragedy” (“Welfare Reform”). During Reagan’s radio address on February 15, 1986, he extended his thoughts on how welfare has caused poverty, a problem that was once shrinking, to explode across the United States.
Davidson states that women on welfare do not sit around or are not of specific ethnicity, but rather they find themselves penniless in certain life circumstances. They usually stay in system for couple of years and often attend schools. Some of them may return to the system, simply because the jobs pay less than welfare and have no health benefits. The second argument that Davidson presents is that “welfare encourages teen pregnancy and large dependent families” (1997). Her findings show that it is impossible to live off the welfare and the monthly allowances would not even cover the diapers’ expenses.
Welfare Keeps America Alive Public assistance, or welfare, defines itself as a public or private social service aimed towards assisting those who are inclined to be more disadvantaged than the general population. Public assistance helps these disadvantaged by providing a minimal but steady income from organizations, such as the TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) or the SSI (supplemental security income).These organizations help the struggling to regain their previous successes thus, creating a better stabilized economy. Public assistance is needed due to the increasing poverty rates in the United States caused by unemployment and physical disabilities. A common misconception made about welfare is that anyone who applies for the assistance automatically becomes a recipient.
The U.S Government has social welfare systems that supports lower class in need. From home providing programs like “Welfare” and “Section 8 housing” to food providing programs like “Food Stamps” and “WIC “( Women, Infants, and Children ). The U.S government economy has declined immensely over the years resulting in a high unemployment rate and very high market pricing. Therefor, theres a very large group of people who are struggling financially, in need of food or shelter, cant find a job, income cant support their kids, etc .. Also there is an additional group of people mainly immigrants who simply struggle to speak the language and can’t really find there place in this country.
Welfare Abuse “Today, we are ending welfare as we know it, but I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began” (Welfare Reform). These words were spoken by President Clinton during the signing ceremony of his passed legislature that called for a drastic reform of the welfare system. After years of implementation, the current welfare system of the time, the AFDC, had been said to cause familial issues when it was meant to be providing aid to families in poverty. It had been accused of promoting fatherless children and providing the poor and out-of-work with reasons and motives to stay unemployed. Being funded by taxes, it does not make much sense to continue a program that hinders both those receiving it