Benefits Of Welfare Funding

The United States recently experienced one of the greatest "booms" in our economic history. More people were working than ever before. People were buying houses at a faster rate than they have in decades. Yet there were many people still living from paycheck to paycheck, or welfare check to welfare check. The subject of welfare stirs different passions in different people. Some say that those who are on welfare should be taken off, with no hope of survival afterward. They should "support themselves," these people say. Others believe that these welfare recipients should be able to stay on the rolls indefinitely. I think that people who are on welfare, who are physically capable to work,

No matter how liberal or conservative, all politicians agree that welfare costs could be greatly reduced if abuse and fraud were eliminated. Welfare was first introduced in the 20’s as a program to help people get through the depression. The government created many public works jobs to employ the thousands that lost their jobs. At the time it was a great program but seventy-five years

The government in the United States needs to realize that the welfare program is only a burden to our country. Welfare is only shown to be fiscally unsustainable the total amount the government spends on welfare comes out to nearly six hundred sixty eight billion dollars per year. That is sixteen times the amount they spent in the 1960’s and yet the poverty rate still remains almost the same. For those people who are using this program or for the people who support it this number may not mean anything but for all the hard working Americans that work hard for a living it must place a lot of pressure and anger on them. To think

Emily Badger said in The Washington Post “The reality, though, is that a tremendous share of people who rely on government programs designed for the poor in fact work — they just don't make enough at it to cover their basic living expenses (Badger).” To even go a little further, according to the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education seventy-three percent of individuals who benefit from assistant programs in the U.S, live in a household where at least one individual is earning/bringing in an income. Even with that income they just cant afford the tedious things such as medial bills, paying for childcare/daycare services, or buying groceries after they receive their paycheck or get done paying all of the other bills that factor into everyday life (Badger). If there was a crack down on the requirements for welfare, yes it may be a little harder to receive but for people who TRULY need it would get it. As long as one can prove that they cannot make all of their bills and provide their family with all of the necessities with the income they have, they should absolutely receive welfare. If you do not have a job you should be given the option to either find a job by a certain deadline, or participate in community service. If half of the individuals who abuse welfare we caught, and forced to

When welfare was originally created, the point of welfare was to help people who were struggling to get back on their feet. Whether it be due to a medical emergency, job loss, or other unexpected problems. But that is not the case anymore. Although, welfare fraud often goes unnoticed in our society, the United States is going further into debt due to the amount of people who abuse Medicaid, food stamps,

Welfare should not be removed completely, for some actually need it, but it should be limited to prevent people from abusing the system and cheating taxpayers out of their money.

Welfare was designed to reduce poverty, yet the poverty rates have only increased. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (welfare) was designed to help families struggling with financial hardships for a short period of time. It is not a lifelong program like so many assume it is. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” (Gaiser 3). What he meant by saying this is that we are enabling people to become dependent on others which is detrimental, not only to the recipients of welfare, but to the nation as a whole. We are not doing any good to anyone by continually supporting the poor and underprivileged with welfare systems because they are not doing their job; they are not helping people out of poverty. In fact, the Libertarian Party says they are doing just the opposite, and now that officials have realized this, they are trying to make up for it. However, they are doing so in the wrogn ways. The welfare reform has pushed

I believe that the government handing out checks to those who meet the requirements for welfare is a good thing, but only to a certain extent. Today, many families across the nation are being fully supported by the government. I believe that the government should only provide families with money if they commit to finding a way to

Ronald Reagan said, “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.” Welfare is not solving Poverty in America. Before I start this argument I need to assert that I do not think that welfare is a matter of solving poverty anymore. I agree with Ban Ki-Moon when he says, “True security is based on people’s welfare.” Welfare has become a way of keeping the impoverished people from becoming desperate enough to commit crimes, but within this system, that was originally meant to improve the poverty situation, there is evidence that it is causing more people to fall below the poverty line and become dependent on it. I think the US government should consider a welfare reform while thinking about what they really need welfare to accomplish. I think that a welfare program is necessary and I think that a program to help people who are in poverty is needed, but right now I do not think these two programs coincide as they are supposed to. Thus, welfare is hindering impoverished people from ever getting above the poverty line, and the government needs to reform the program.

There has been much speculation over the past years as to whether Welfare is even necessary, and with the large list of people who benefit from it growing every day, the answer some state legislatures give is not eliminating Welfare, but rather tweaking the rules a little bit. This all started in 2011, it was proposed at the Florida, Missouri and Arizona State Legislature. These state legislatures proposed for the people who receive Welfare be tested on a regular basis. (Finzel) I believe that although it may seem like a morally great idea, it is something difficult to accomplish; considering all of the people on Welfare that would have to be tested and the money that would go into them being tested. Not just that, the children that would be affected if their parents failed the test. Taking that all into consideration puts me on the fence with this issue.

All throughout history welfare services have been available to the general public. While these benefits have changed over time, the basic intentions of the welfare system has stayed the same. The welfare system provides benefits and monetary assistance to those who qualify. Different acts over the past two hundred years have been amended in order to try to help the poor, and while not all have been practical and successful, many programs have indeed done an outstanding job in aiding those in need. But, just like with all good things, there is a negative side. Even with all the reforms to try perfect the welfare system there are still some holes in it. Not only is the welfare system easy to manipulate, according to usgovernmentspending.com, eleven percent of the federal budget is spent on welfare, leaving tax payers livid. (usgovspending.com) It 's obvious there is a need for a welfare system in the United States, but with the abuse the welfare system has endured a major change needs to be seen in order to ensure the welfare system be used as efficiently as possible.

The Welfare Program is another program that is abused, although it has not run out money has created a burden on the American economy. The government is the blame for this by encouraging over use of the system. Instead of funding the entire livelihood of family households, the federal government could better manage this program by subsidizing the monthly incomes, versus taxpayers footing the entire expense. The federal budget is over spent and as a result the legislators are looking for ways to make cuts and that usually comes if the form of having states reducing state workers such as schoolteachers and state road crews. The welfare program could be a more efficient program implementing a workfare program thus increasing the workforce and discouraging abuse by generations of families of a much-needed program that should be used to assist the elderly and mentally challenged. It is no one’s constitutional right to receive charity; society does not owe healthily citizens a dime. It is however, the individual’s constitutional right to prosper and that is not by collecting a free hand out. To achieve success you have to go after it, it is not handed to you. "Ability is what you are capable of doing; Motivation determines what you do; Attitude determines how well you do it". Lou Holtz

The extensive amount the government spends on welfare could easily be spent on more productive things. Not only that, but more has been spent on the war on poverty than the combined cost of all American wars ever. Which considering those go all the way back to the Revolutionary War, that is an absolute disgrace to this country and its citizens. All of this government spending gives people significant incentive to stay on welfare (3). Welfare is meant to be a temporary necessity, not a way of life. With the government money and state money combined, 10.3 trillion is disbursed on welfare (Bandow 2). It is estimated that welfare spending will increase from five to six percent GPA by the end of the decade (Gaiser 2). That is a preposterous amount and there is no reason for our country to spend so much money supporting people who choose not to work. Society would be a better place if people would put in an actual effort in life and not collect the money of those who

Welfare should not be reformed because it helps single parents. 40 percent of single mothers are poor, 12 million single parents-mother-headed families are poor (Freeman). Welfare can help keep these single parent families stay stable to be an effective families. 12 million single parents mothers headed families can be reduced to less underachieving families with the assistants of welfare. Also with single parents they never had an significant other.

There are 109,631,000 Americans on welfare, and only 105,862,000 full time working Americans. The fact that the amount of people on welfare outnumbers those who work, shows how our country is deteriorating. Some individuals on welfare take advantage of the system and exchange the things given to them, such as food stamps, for drugs or alcohol. I think anyone who does that should be taken off of welfare. In order to prevent that from happening in the future, I believe a system should be made. The system would determine whether an individual is deserving of government assistance or not. In order to be on welfare, there would be a drug test that has to be passed to even be considered. If passed, there would be quarterly drug tests that have to be passed in order to continue to get help from the government. There should also be a standard set that determines if the severity of the person’s disability is worthy of governmental assistance. If they meet all the criteria and pass their quarterly drug tests, then they deserve to be on welfare. Those who do not meet the criteria and are qualified to work, should get a job in order to support themselves and their