i. Welfare, the call to humans compassion and duty for some and to others it’s the impending doom that is responsible for a lot more devastation than it’s positive results. The massive amount of funds that has been allocated and the jobs that have been created by this program is often a hot topic of debate, along with the intricacies questioned and and a constant cry for policy reform. Welfare is also a lot broader than some people believe, it contains anything from food stamps and social security to Medicaid to a local stream of income for your family. The debate for the Welfare State is a tough one with valid points on both sides of the argument; on one side you have to ask if yourself is it morally just to abolish the program, and on the …show more content…
It started with the 3 R’s: Relief, recovery and reform. Relief to those families desperately in need, economic recovery in the market and reform in policy changes so a depression could never happen again. In 1935 FDR signed the Social Security Act as part of of the Second New Deal. "the time has come for action by the national government to provide security against the major hazards and vicissitudes of life."-FDR. He believed that a depression like that was something that should never happen again so he decided to sign bills with congress and have a couple of executive orders to institute giant work projects to employ work, institute a minimum wage and give unions more power. They thought that by having a culture of protectionism and interventionism it would create economic …show more content…
Yes, there was a reform on the AFDC program instituted by the New deal. In 1996, Clinton wrote into law (PRWORA) Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This reform of the welfare program changed the intergovernmental funding from an entitlement system to a block grant which changed how it was viewed and spent. Since it’s now a block grant, if a local government collected the money through it’s own taxation laws it can spend the money however they like with no restriction from the upper tier levels of government. So now you have a flypaper effect as well especially if you talk about corporate welfare. You have voters who want higher benefits and services (hospitals and the like) so now the governments are asking for higher grants from the government and in return the voters are not seeing this money or even knowing that this extra amount has been added to the budget. They will associate this money as the local government sees fit and the voters may or maynot be aware of this. So you have welfare being offered