Article Summary: Give Poor People Cash By Charles Kenny

In Leslie Reynolds’ “Misuse of Welfare in American Low Class Citizens,” she employs various logical methods to support her argument that welfare in the United States is being misused by our citizens and something must be done to prevent the welfare misuse. Reynolds relies on definition, facts, statistics, personal and public experience, and also tries to find different solutions for this heavily impacted issue. Reynolds believes something should be done to prevent the many low class recipients from abusing and misusing the welfare system. For example, Reynolds suggests the government could restart the welfare system, have stricter guidelines, and have more monitoring of the system itself to prevent our money being misled. Reynolds blends her

In the article “Rethinking the American poverty”, Mark Rank suggests the three major shifts that are required for a practical understanding of American poverty. First, it’s important to recognize that poverty affects us all because of two reasons. The first reason is that each year, the government has to spend a lot of money to solve the social problems associated with poverty. Poor people suffer from lack of health access, not having enough money to support their basic needs,…which create a huge burden on the government’s budget. The second explanation for us to care about poverty is that there is a strong chance at some point during life time, Americans would face poverty. The second shift is to realize that American poverty is largely the

The number of Americans taking part in the welfare system today has hit 12 million, an all-time high, proving its significance in government. Americans not on welfare complain about the unfairness it causes, but have yet to propose a better plan. Changing these government assistance programs sounds easier than it really is, because while it may rid of those who take advantage of the free money, it also leaves plenty of helpless Americans to fend for themselves. In a society where Americans are compensated for idleness through government social programs, there exist many ecclesiastical institutions striving to reclaim dependent Americans by teaching self-reliance using more organized and functional welfare programs, from which the United

One reform argument is centered on the ?burden? for taxpayers to support people who are not trying to help themselves. Gilens reported, ?The economic self-interest explanation of welfare reform is widely assumed to be true, and debates over public policy often remain on the assumption that the middle class resent paying for programs that benefit only the poor? (Gilens, p. 2, 1996). Reform efforts often focus on general stereotypes of welfare recipients not wanting to work and preferring to take advantage of taxpayer money. Conservatives and liberals refer to ?welfare spending? as excessive and unnecessary. However, prior to the popularity of welfare reform, the U.S. Bureau of Census reported actual money spent on AFDC was only 7% of the $613 billion spend on social welfare which included health care, veterans? programs, education, housing, and pubic aid (tables 579, 583, 1993). With government statistics contradicting claims of excessive spending, there is

This lack of “support systems” is why the poor ultimately fail to advance. Throughout the last decade the federal government has issued billions of dollars into work supports, but due to unorganized tactics they have failed at eliminating poverty, “law makers have poured billions of dollars into ‘work supports’ such as child-care subsidies and employment tax credits. Yet no one in Washington seemed to think about assembling these services in a coherent package that would be accessible and convenient to struggling workers” (The American Prospect). The answer, according to Sharon Parrott, director of welfare reform and income support division at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “says it [policy] would have three components: convenient one stop service centers; streamlined application forms; and generous income ceilings so that a working parent doesn’t lose eligibility for, say, health insurance the minute he or she climbs above the poverty

In the current state of the American economy, needless spending is something the government needs to avoid at all costs. With some trillion dollars owed to various foreign countries, the United States literally cannot afford to pump money into programs that do not benefit the country as a whole. Michael Tanner, who is the Director of Health and Welfare studies at the Cato Institute, reports that this year the Federal government will spend 952,000,000,000 dollars on programs to help the poor (10). While some of this money goes to people who truly need it, there are many people that take advantage of the kindness of others. Robert Rector, who is the Senior

In 2008 total money spent on welfare was equally about $16,800 for each person in poverty, equal to about $50,000 for a family of three below the poverty line. Now the author explains in his opinion Americans can do a better job with the money we already spend, while saving the government (ultimately saving us the taxpayers) money. His ideas is similar to the block grant reforms utilized in the 1990s, where welfare recipients gained nearly 25% more income through actually working, while the government reduced welfare recipients and benefits saving the taxpayers 50% over ten years(Ferrara, 2014).

Throughout both in-class discussions, and David Shipler’s “The Working Poor: Invisible in America” we learned being poor in America is anything but easy. Even with all of our government assistance programs such as Medicaid and Welfare, many family generation after generation seem to fall below the poverty line and create a life of struggle and long way out for their families. When Shipler is explaining different families and their lac of self control in saving the little money they do earn, it makes you question if the have the know how to get out of poverty, or even in some cases even want to due to their different spending habits than successful people, falling into credit traps, and buying the un-necessary.

Poverty is present in today’s U.S. social system. For example, as Lesser states in the Clearinghouse Review, “Forty-six million Americans live in poverty” (1). Lesser then goes on to say how forty-six million Americans living in poverty correlates to almost one in every three single-parent families is poor (1). This is a daunting fact as it applies to today’s economic context with “rising unemployment rates and mortgage crises driving more individuals and families to seek the support of a cash-strapped social welfare structure” (Grijalva 1). With this in mind, many legislators are discussing the topic of poverty in the political realm. In order to tally the score of representatives the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law conducted its sixth annual Poverty Scorecard. “The 2012 Poverty Scorecard grades the voting record of every U.S. senator and representative on the most important poverty-related votes in 2012” (Lesser 1). The 2012 votes covered a range of topics such as budget and tax, food and nutrition, health care, housing, and many more (1). The results of the 2012 Poverty

For most of America’s history, farmers, entrepreneurs or shop owners could live their entire lives without getting any assistance from the federal government except maybe mail. But those days are long gone. In 2012 the total number of Americans on government assistance or welfare reached 4,3000,000. Many of which are 4th or 5th generation Welfare recipients. For whatever the reason, we have become a culture of dependency in which poverty is a trap. Long-term recipients loose job skills, work habits as well as work contacts. For this reason the government should require recipients to work as much as they can. It could be called “workfare” and could help recipients increase potential long-term earnings.

The welfare system was originally created to help people who were temporarily out of work or in need of assistance, but “total welfare spending has nearly doubled since 1996” (Donovan and Rector). Through the years, this program has evolved into a system that still offers assistance, but also does not encourage it recipients to find a way out. The welfare system is dishing out millions of dollars each year to recipients who are putting forth zero effort into supporting themselves and their families. Instead, they rely on tax-payer 's money. The weight of supporting these programs is on the shoulders of middle class workers. As a result American society is getting into deeper poverty. “Unless Congress acts, it will drive the nation into bankruptcy” (Donovan and Rector). The welfare system was at once a good idea to help others get off their feet, but it has changed dramatically over the years due to people abusing the system.

However, this system of measuring poverty is flawed because if a family makes a dollar more above the set limit, they do not qualify for financial help from the government (NCCP, 2008).The poverty threshold is an inadequate measure of whether people are considered poor or not. Current poverty measures are flawed because it assumes how much a family spends and does not accurately include family resources such as Earned Income Tax Credit (NCCP, 2008). The way that the government measures poverty is based on outdated information that was set in the 60s. Because it has not been sufficient to keep up with the standard of living, those who are living in “high cost cities like New York and those who live in rural areas of the country” (NCCP, 2008) are barely getting by.

While it has proven to be difficult to end poverty in America, Peter Edelman is optimistic. In his book So Rich, So Poor Edelman makes a call to action. There are four prominent ideas that underpin Edelman’s reasoning throughout the book: (1) More people must understand why poverty is still so prevalent in America; (2) extreme poverty must be taken into consideration as a shocking 6 million Americans’ sole income was food stamps in 2011. This fact alone creates a sense of urgency that drives Edelman; (3) increasing income inequality should be treated as a moral issue; and (4) bold political action will be required if substantive progress will be made in alleviating poverty.

Even though capitalism has its advantages such as fueling technological innovations, there are some downsides to it. For example, capitalism creates inequalities and clear “winners” or “losers” in society. However, some people blame the poor for their circumstances and attribute their economic misfortune as due to a lack of morality (Lecture April 22, 2015).Those who blame the poor for their “laziness” are unlikely to support welfare programs, such as food stamps, because they see those as handouts.

The pinpoint cause of poverty is challenging to find. People who live well off and are above the poverty line may be quick to assume that laziness, addiction, and the typical stereotypes are the causes of poverty. Barbara Ehrenreich, a well known writer on social issues, brings attention to the stereotypical ideology at her time, that “poverty was caused, not by low wages or a lack of jobs, but by bad attitudes and faulty lifestyles” (17). Ehrenreich is emphasizing the fact that statements like the one listed, often influence readers to paint inaccurate mental pictures of poverty that continue to shine light on the ideology of stereotypes being the pinpoint cause to poverty. However, there are many other causes that are often overshadowed, leaving some individuals to believe that poverty was wrongfully placed upon them. Examples would include: high rates of unemployment, low paying jobs, race, and health complications. Which are all out of one’s ability to control. There is no control over a lack of jobs and high rates of unemployment, nor the amount of inadequate wages the working poor receive. Greg Kaufmann, an advisor for the Economic Hardship Reporting Project and The Half in Ten campaign, complicates matters further when he writes, “Jobs in the U.S. [were] paying less than $34,000 a year: 50 percent. Jobs in the U.S. [were] paying below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually: 25 percent” (33). Acknowledging Kaufmann’s fact, the amount received for a family of four is fairly close to the yearly salary of a high school graduate, which means, receiving that kind of pay for one man may seem challenging, now imagine caring for the needs of four individuals. To make matters worse, certain families receive that amount of money and carry the burden of paying for