Pros And Cons Of Government Assistance In America

As the United States sled into a great economic depression in the early 2000’s, the people of this country grew desperate and in need of government assistance. As with any economic downfall the unemployment rate grew to a staggering high. Most families were despondent to stay afloat the poverty line on whatever means possible. But what are the effects of continuously throwing money at people even when the economy bounces back? In an editorial recognizing these effects, “Welfare Dependency Destroying America,” John Mariotti, an advisor to and president of many successful companies explains why giving handouts aren’t always a positive matter.

Is it fair for the people in poverty and on food stamps to receive more than a hard working citizen? The government gave enough benefits to the people in the food stamp program so that everyone on food stamps received 60,000 dollars, while the average income for a hard working American is 50,000 dollars. The definition of food stamps is a voucher issued by the government to those on low income and is exchangeable for food. The government spends over seventy-six billion dollars per year on food stamps. This covers about forty-eight million people in America.

Food stamps are a widely debated issue within the United States, and every year new proposed laws create arguments that can get bitter, personal, and ugly. Some see them as “free tickets” for the lazy and unemployed, while others believe they are the government’s way of providing the right to life that the country was founded on. As evidence shows, SNAP benefits are important to impoverished areas because they bring food to places were companies would normally not go to and give benefits to people who cannot help their situation.

Government Assistant Programs such as Welfare, Food stamps, Daycare, Healthcare, Energy, Communication and Transportation should be kept because they serve as an aid to people who need them. Past and current supporters of extirpating Government Assistant Programs claim that social security is number one on the list for needing to be suppressed. There are some who say that social security is a mandatory Ponzi scheme that has a bad effect on American workers. According to Julia Borowski, staff writer at Freedom Works, who promotes lower taxes, less government, and more freedom, calls social security a mandatory Ponzi scheme. Borowski also claims that everyone is being forced to

Should Food Stamps be discontinued permanently? So many people believe that you should work for the things you have. Some people say although people work, they still do not have enough money to buy food. No one knows the real struggle of low income until they have experienced it themselves. Food stamps are a benefit from the government to help people with low income buy food. Depending on the amount of income someone makes, depends on the amount you receive from the government. Some people do take advantage of the low income benefits, but that does not give anyone the right to discontinue them. There are more the just food stamps or other “low income benefits” that are being taken advantage of.

"We have a new division in America: those who pay a double fare, and those who forever ride free" ("Opposing Viewpoints 1"). Taxpayers are stripped of their hard earnings, only to have it put into programs that 'help' struggling families back onto their feet. Taxpayers are the ones who support these programs, and they don't get any credit for this. The federal government believes that government programs are here to act as a safety net for struggling families. But are they really? Taking money from taxpayers and using it to benefit not themselves, but others isn't a safety net. Government funded programs are not beneficial to the United States due to participants relying too much on the state and fraud in these programs.

“This, by the way, is the welfare state in action: It’s a whole bunch of special interest groups screwing consumers and taxpayers, and making them think they're really benefiting” (Murray Rothbard).

Even with the careful planning of the new program, there are still doubters that the TANF will actually work. The introduction of TANF was a way to encourage families to employment while receiving assistance. Though the program showed much promise, there are still growing concerns that some families are worse off as results of time limits. Before 1996, adults with problems could stay on welfare for years without having to meet any work or training requirements. But because of the new law, these families have been subjected to such requirements and some simply could not meet them.

Upon reading about drug testing to receive welfare benefits is no doubt to be a controversial one. Many would highly agree with the matter; however, many more could not help but disagree. It was called “an attempt to demonize poor people” Jim McGovern from The Huffington Post stated.

I started this research project the same way I start every research based assignment; by going to the schools library website. I started this project with the belief that welfare is a good idea when not abused but has quickly lost meaning and has now created generations of dependence. I began my welfare search looking for the positives and negatives of welfare as well as possible reforms. I thought this was going to be easier than what it was but my initial sources were coming up short in my opinion for what I was specifically looking for. I search everything I could about my topic including welfare, welfare reform, welfare and the economy, as well as welfares effectiveness. I then began to look outside the libraries website and ventured into

In America there countless families that need to rely on receiving government assistance or welfare to live and survive in their day to day lives. Sadly, a large portion of those Americans suffer financially as a direct reflection of chronic drug-use. The welfare system and all other government assistance programs have failed, and continue to fail, to implement rules and regulations in regards to drug-use by recipients. This circumstance opens up doors for those seeking to take advantage of the system, which do not work as a result of their drug use, and receive benefits and continue to use drugs. The government assistance programs would benefit from drug-testing all welfare and government assistance recipients not only to re-direct the benefits

There are many people nowadays on government assistance. Assistance such as financial aid, unemployment, welfare, etc. Some families who are receiving this assistance, do not have jobs. They depend on the money they receive from the government. Aside from not having a job, they are using the money the earn towards drugs and alcohol. So yes, people receiving assistance from the governments should be tested for drug use.

This will help so many single families that are taking care of their children and for the ones who are single handed taking of a loved one in their home. There are a lot of households that have more than one child or dependent. I believe this will help these people and make their living more formable. Helping with the non-child dependent is helpful because this consist of college students people over the age of 21-25, and elderly persons being taking care of and financially supported on a day to day basic.

The future is uncertain, as such conventional wisdom dictates that governments must intervene in the economy to help enhance growth and ensure stability. However, is too much intervention a bad thing? There are many reasons why it is so but one such reason is that in an economy where there is excessive government intervention and ownership such as in the Soviet Union, there was a lack of risk and subsequently lack of innovation as rather than satisfying customers the concern of a producer in the system was to satisfy the state. The lack of a reward for working harder, due to all businesses being owned by the state reduces incentive to produce or innovate and this leads to inefficient outcomes in an economy. This is a contrast to a capitalist society where innovation and hard work can lead to personnel gain in the form of money. Price ceiling and price floors are price control mechanisms that are used to, respectively set a maximum price, and a minimum price. One such problem as a result of implementing these is that they will artificially cause a shortage or surplus, respectively, of the good or service due to affecting supply and demand. This prevents the good/services to be at the equilibrium price, which is where economic outcomes would be most efficient. So should governments intervene? Regardless of the aforementioned downsides this has always been a topic of debate between Keynesian economists and classical economists, but a widely accepted consensus is that some level

Poverty is a big problem in every country but for the US and mostly like of these people could have made better choices in life to avoid needing it. Every man who choose to get government aids can be the most embarrassing situation. The first star to reduce welfare can be by having affordable mortgage's, free education, handling out free birth controls and accessing to health care legalizing marijuana it will be less crimes. marginal or the residual poor refuse to get a job because having these benefits by not going to work by not even trying. these government aid should only given to people who choose to have a better lfe meaning apply for jobs or trying to a career or education but not for people who have no type of ambition. One of the most important lowering the price of living for example