Welfare To Work Reform Essay

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was an attempt by the government to get people to be more efficient and less reliant on the government. There was a sort of “exchange” between the government and citizens. Citizens work and in return they receive financial assistances. This is referred to as the TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. It was supposed to motivate people to work, or that was the goal. Recipients were required to work at least 20 hours a week. This was actually successful in decreasing the number of Americans who were dependent on welfare systems. As diversity greatly increased, the need for welfare also increased. Welfare reform efforts were attempted because of the various changes occurring. Welfare in the United States is

Can a single mother of three working full time for minimum wage afford to pay ' by herself ' for food, clothing, transportation, childcare, occupational training and medical care? Without government aid, the obvious answer is no. Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), as described by Robert Kuttner, is a government aid program designed 'to help all of the working poor rise out of poverty.' It includes tuition reimbursements, wage supplements, and above all, childcare? (Kuttner). It creates a more equal opportunity for those at a disadvantage to improve themselves and their situation. TANF, 'which limits the time families can remain on welfare, appears to be a smashing success' (Cohn). First, if eligibility were to become stricter, seeking

The current US welfare reform comes with time limit that on benefit together with the work activity requirement (Weil & Finegold 20). An adult can only get federal welfare fund within five years. Moreover, if the beneficiary is not participating in any income generating activity, the assistance that the beneficiary receives from the government should be cut after two years. There is also a research that shows that the welfare reform has recast programs that have low incomes such as health insurance and work support to ensure that the citizens leave the welfare.

The purpose of my research is to discern how welfare spending, healthcare spending, defence spending, and pension spending impacted vote choice in the 2013 Australian election in comparison to the 2012 United States election, 2013 German election, and 2012 France election. I expect that as support for welfare spending, pension spending, and healthcare spending, decreases, support for right wing parties will increase. I expect that there will be a positive effect on voting for right wing parties as support for defence spending increases. I expect that of these issues, welfare spending will have the largest magnitude and that pension spending will have the lowest magnitude. I do not believe there will be an additional effect in Australia and that the impact will be similar to that of other industrial democracies.

Welfare started as a temporary response to the economic crash in the 1930s. Its primary goal was to provide cushioning to the families who lost the ability to be self-sufficient during the Great Depression. Yet, as America slowly rose back to becoming prosperous and wealthy, a significant chunk of America's population stayed below in the transitioning social system. The welfare system started to become counterproductive to the government so that, in the 1990s, Clinton hastily came up with legislation to end welfare, more famously known as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. This road that Clinton led ended in a downfall as more people than ever before are now dependent on the federal government for food, housing, and income. Our current welfare reform may need another reform before welfare can truly end.

If eligible, families receive services such as x-rays, doctor visits, diagnostic testing, and etc, for free or may be required to pay a reduced amount of the bill. The welfare system has changed over the year from a long-term to short-term assistance in order to encourage independency. Not only does the tax funded welfare programs provide a means of distributing the wealth across the country, but also control poverty in America and improve the standard of living for low-income families.

The effects of the 1996 welfare reform bill helped declined caseloads on the social and economic well-being of fragile families, single mothers, and children. Although, the welfare reform was documented for making several positive changes such as reducing poverty rates, lowering the out of-wedlock childbearing, and formulated a better family structure, it is undeniable that poverty remained high among single mothers and their children. The reality of the matter was that most welfare recipients experienced serious barriers to maintain a stable employment due to their lack of skills, not having anyone available to take care of their young children when they leave for work as well as not gaining long-time employment with decent pay to help foster the family. As a result, most poor women and children were faced with the instability of economic and social future as welfare eligibility exhausted their efforts of supporting their families.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act also shifted the spotlight of welfare from family maintenance through government-supported financial assistance to family economic self-sufficiency through paid employment. This federal welfare reform policy known as TANF encourages employment and personal responsibility by mandating states to provide financial benefits to families on a temporary basis, having recipients participate in a work requirement while receiving aid, and providing incentives for recipients to transition off welfare. The programs name indicated its purpose and the social message to the recipient.

Welfare, enacted by one of the greatest presidents of the United States’s existence, Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, is an effective and useful means to assist American families in need. Throughout history, welfare has proven to help people get back on their feet and into society. Despite the system’s many useful benefits, like most attributes in this world, welfare has kinks in the system. In fact, welfare has yet to be perfected, even though it was established in the year of 1935 and is still in use today. The system may never be perfected, but it can be improved. There are many different thoughts and ideas pertaining to how welfare should change. Some believe it should be eliminated entirely. In doing so, many people all across the nation would be harmed in financial and mental manners. How can welfare be reformed? Is it even possible? The answer is absolutely. It must be reformed, and many would agree on the matter. It is, however, a sensitive and controversial topic to most. Political parties tend to take interest in the discussion of welfare reform, as well. The typical, left-wing Democrat wishes to give more to welfare users, while the standard right-wing Republican would like to decrease what is given to Americans. If everything has its imperfections, why should welfare be reformed? Why not leave it the way it is and let the government figure out the fine print? There are those that take this sort of stance on welfare reform, and there are some that believe differently.

Welfare reform sparked a great deal of interest in the 1990’s when President Clinton called together a speech calling for dramatic changes to the welfare policy. In his speech he stated “No one who works full-time and has children at home should be poor anymore. No one who can work should

In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act which, among other things, provided for the financial, medical, and material needs of the poor (Komisar 125,128). Since then, there have many additions and reforms to the bill, none of which has served to quell the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the welfare system in the United States. The main concerns of the distribution of welfare dollars and resources can be answered by the questions ?Who gets assistance?? and ?How much do they receive??. The U.S. welfare system is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, which attempts to answer these questions through a system of minimum incomes, government-calculated poverty levels, number of children, health problems, and many other criteria. This complicated system leads to one of the critiques of the welfare system?that it is too large and inefficient. President Lyndon Johnson declared a ?War on Poverty? in 1964 designed to alleviate the burden of the poor and established the Food Stamp program the next year (Patterson 139). In 1996, a major welfare reform bill was passed that placed time limits on welfare assistance, required able participants to actively seek employment, and implemented additional services for the needy (Patterson 217).

There seems to be an increase in poverty in the United States and there are so many theories behind why this might be a problem. It seems as if Society as a whole wants to blame this social “condition” on Society itself. I believe that the problem of poverty lies within the actual individuals that are experiencing poverty. There are a few reasons why people experience poverty. They are as follows: One, the liberal welfare programs that were started in the 1960’s, two, individuals lack the characteristic of power and individuality, three, anti-social behavior and the idea that poverty passes from one generation to the next.

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

In 1996, the federal government came to the conclusion that the welfare system should be placed in the hands of the state governments. With this in mind, the Temporary Aid to Needy Families was established. The TANF is more governed towards getting people back into the workforce by requiring recipients to engage in job searches, and participate in community service. The previous phase of welfare was more for providing people with capital in the hopes that he/she would use it to get back on his/her feet. The TANF is still known as welfare to the public (“Government Spends”). In the new welfare program,

First of all, people who are on welfare usually do become dependent on assistance because it gives them an incentive to avoid work. Many generations of families have been living on welfare assistance and have not made any reasonable efforts to prosper within our society. According to the article Welfare in the United States, “Some people get on welfare because they were laid off or relocated, but whatever the reason, some get stuck on welfare much longer than necessary and no one has the ability to remove them” (Redyns, 2007). Welfare was designed to give a boost to the poor, and help struggling families make it through the year,