Culture Of Dependency

People generally enjoy working and being productive members of society. The positive effects of the Welfare Reform Act is moving to eventually end poverty in America and promote economic growth. According to the 2005 report measuring welfare dependents “Poverty in 2003 remains much lower than in 1996, the year of passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The official poverty rate for 2003 was 12.5 percent, compared to 13.7 percent in 1996.” ( Gil Crouse, Susan Hauan, Julia Isaacs, Kendall Swenson and Lisa Trivits, 2005 ) States that design welfare-to-work policies that emphasized getting recipients into jobs by shifting to “work-first” welfare systems can modify program rules to allow more earned income,

Federal Government has the ability to create positive change in many social welfare systems. The support of the government ultimately determines the success of a social welfare program. They play an important role in the decisions of how funds are allocated and the importance of these various vulnerable populations. The federal government is used as a tool, to help implement and support social welfare programs. However, from my own opinion, it is sometimes lacking in the proper support needed in many aspects. This is caused by a plethora of reasons, not to say that the government is completely unsupportive. Yet, there may be a gap in the perception of these social issues. The government puts in place laws, regulations, system structures, and so on. Therefore, because the government are the implementers of how our country is ran, it is their responsibility to be a main facets in the support of the gaps that inevitably occur. Nonetheless, it can be difficult to understand the needs of these population’s and the reality of their hardships. Most in a position of power, such as the federal government, have not experienced the severity of the many situations, that results in individuals needing assistance from these social welfare programs. Moreover, it is essential that there is outreach to these populations. All the same, getting a more realistic view of the life in these contexts. For instance, the time cap of being on assistance throughout one’s

Helping those partaking in the programs has come at a cost to our country. We have accumulated a colossal amount of debt. This is due to many different things one of which is governmental spending on assistance

America was founded on several principles to include, that all men are created equal. However, throughout history, it has been made clear through the various social classes that this is not the case within the realm of monetary value. It is for reasons such as this that the entitlement programs were born. Entitlement programs were created to provide security and assistance to those in need. They would allocate basic necessities for eligible persons and families to live comfortably until they are no longer necessary. Though a great deal of people across the country have benefited from these programs, it has come at a high cost to the government and the taxpayers. Because of the apparent success and high expenses, there are a number of arguments both for and against entitlement programs. This includes the extent of their benefits and costs, the amount spent to fuel them, and even their entire existence. On one hand, they have proven value by significantly reducing the national poverty level and other similar successes; on the other, they cost the country millions and have been adding to the ever increasing national deficit. Another common school of thought, is that an increasing number of individuals or families have become completely dependent on them as they create an avenue to stability at no cost to them. The overwhelming and unnecessary volume of goods and services—including medicaid, unemployment compensation, and food stamps— that entitlement programs supply to many

The respected political scientist James Q. Wilson summarized this political reality in a single sentence: "Telling people who want clean air, a safe environment, fewer drug dealers, a decent retirement, and protection against catastrophic medical bills that the government ought not to do these things is wishful or suicidal politics." Along with Wilson, Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, recently noted that the "government social safety net for the truly indigent is one of the greatest achievements of our society....We have to declare peace on the safety net.”-(National Summit Video) Providing such services and securing that safety net does not mean accepting the technocratic mindset of the liberal welfare state. It means replacing that mindset with a conservative approach that puts government on the side of civil society and private enterprise in order to achieve a more just and thriving

“Open ended benefit programs, funded by other people’s money” foster a ’something for nothing’ mentality, that is weakening America”, states Nicholas Eberstadt. The governments need to emphasize unemployment spending and help businesses that are failing, is driving the national debt up by the day (Clemmitt). “Government is what it spends” Allen Schick shares in Clemmitt’s article, but this statement is only factual if that government spends its money wisely.

Welfare is a program in the United States that provides economic support to citizens who are unemployed or underemployed. This program was started during the 1930’s to help out the millions of people who were affected by the great depression. By the 1960’s the welfare program was not being used the same and many believed it was being misused. The welfare program in the United States should be abolished because it costs more than it helps, it is a waste of money, it is abused, and because it teaches bad work ethics.

Advocates of the current welfare system approve that many citizens in poverty have a need for aid from their state. Adversaries, however, understand the system involves taxpayers to pay for the unsuccessful programs, and leaves the poor on a platform that destroys opportunities for them. Today, over a third of Americans now receive some type aid, with an average of $9,000 per person totaling nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually. Taxpayers have financed almost $20 trillion in welfare spending since the 1960s.

There are currently two prevalent narratives on the duties, the obligations, of a government, both of which have been used to justify government welfare. The first, and most vocal is that a government, in general and without exception, ought to protect its own citizens from any and all harms. The second popular narrative is where the government is strictly in existence to protect the rights (life, liberty, property, Bill of Rights, et cetera) of its citizens. First, it is first imperative to know that 14.5% of American families are below the poverty line and struggle to even place food on the table and are in a real danger of starving (Bread). Whether it is to protect its citizens from poverty or their lives from the effect of it, most would agree that the government has a moral obligation to act. Thus, it is reproachable for a government to take no action in protecting its citizens from from the

These programs to aid the middle class require money that the government does not have. To create the necessary funds needed to operate the “Stimulus Package,” the government levied high taxation on corporations. However, this had the opposite result. The high taxation placed on large corporations took away jobs from the American middle class(Kent McDill). Middle class jobs are slowly bleeding out of America. The high taxation, along with strict corporate regulations are taking middle class jobs out of America and forcing corporations to take a different route for employees.

For centuries, nations, cities, and individual families have dealt with the problem of poverty; how to remedy current situations and how to prevent future ones. For most of history, there have been no government controlled poverty assistance programs. The poor simply relied on the goodness of their families or, if they did not have a family, on the generosity of the public at large. In the United States, this situation changed in 1935 with the passage of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Act has seen many successes, but it also faces many critiques of its structure and function. In the past, most governments did little to actively aid their poor population. This duty was

Throughout history, there have always been people willing to work for what they want, and those who expect things to be handed to them as if it was a natural-born right. While the welfare system does positively impact some families in need, many people take advantage of it. With this being a well known fact, the government still continues to use ten percent of the federal budget on welfare (“Budget” 1).

The current system of welfare gives benefits to some people but not to others. That means we spend a lot of resources inquiring through the details of people’s private lives to see if they really qualify or not. The difficulty of this patchwork is overwhelming to individuals experiencing it directly. Monitoring people, Coordinating hundreds of arbitrary and ever-changing rules, ensuring people are destitute first before qualifying for welfare or social housing increases unnecessary complexity to government (Perieira, 2015). And that also means that there’s a big incentive for special interest groups to gain the system to their own advantage, or even to oppress or disenfranchised groups they don’t like. But what if what you really need is something completely different. What if you want to forego present consumption, and save your benefits for the future? Under the current system, when the government gives you housing vouchers, or food stamps, you have to use those benefits on what the government thinks you need. This is only one of many examples of an individual facing multiple welfare bureaucracies. Clearly, you cannot save food stamps in the bank, but you can save cash and you can spend it on whatever you think you need. In this way, a basic income gives people the freedom to make their own decisions about how to improve their own lives. In this way, a simple rule namely basic income is not only fair, it is also more stable. In the case of the

Social Security is what keeps many elderly and disabled Americans from being stricken by poverty. Without Social Security in our society 15.3 million elderly would have incomes below the poverty line, however after Social Security was added to the equation only 3.8 million elderly have incomes below poverty. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were removed from below the poverty line by Social

The concept of culture is something that defines many aspects of one’s life. From physical objects to different ways of thinking, culture adds significance to human life and makes groups of people distinct from one another. Culture is essentially a group of people who come together with similar interests and points of view. According to the Center for Advanced Language Acquisition of the University of Minnesota, “culture is defined as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of socialization.” From a more sociological perspective, culture is a way in which people come together in order to fulfill their needs. These shared patterns and ideas identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group.” Culture is one of the things that sets the United States apart from the rest of the world. Not that the rest of the world is not cultural, but the circumstance here is different. Many people of different cultural backroads come to this country in search of a better life. As a consequence, the United States has become a place where many cultures merge together like a colossal pot soup.