Social Welfare Programs Should Not Be Legal

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

“A closed mouth doesn’t get fed” is a saying that many people have heard throughout life. This saying was brought about to encourage people to ask for help if needed. But what happens when the open mouth asked to be fed, and instead of receiving help they are forced to be demeaned by going through a rigorous process that assumes that all applicants fall in to the category of drug addicts? Guilty until proven innocent is the message conveyed to persons requesting these services. Millions of dollars are spent each year on federally funded programs that are considered “welfare”. The types of services these programs offer include TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), SNAP

Thousands of people are signed up to receive welfare in America, this program is designed to aid poor and needy families. However, it has become some people’s way of earning an income. Several argue against and say that welfare is not destroying our country and creating a dependent people who have learned to abuse certain privileges that come with living in this nation.

When most people think of the average welfare recipient they most likely imagine someone who is a slacker; unambitious and one who is not a hard worker, someone who lazes around waiting until their welfare check comes in so that they can spend it all on whatever frivolous thing they want, and wait until the next check arrives. Sometimes people think of a mother and her children in a poor neighborhood, who wants more money to spend on expensive clothes and electronics, so she gets her welfare checks and buys the expensive yet unnecessary items without using the money to get out of a bad financial situation, contented to live this way without working towards anything better. Nobody would be in support of a system that gives undeserving people their own tax money. However, that is not what welfare looks like. Welfare looks like overworked parents who are doing the best they can, but still don’t have enough to put a meal on the table. Welfare looks like people afraid to lose their homes and willing to do almost anything to just keep living. Welfare looks like the mentally disabled, who despite trying their hardest, need more help. This is what welfare looks like; people in need who strive to live a better life. Welfare helps families in need not only by giving them money but by aiding them with every aspect of their lives such as food, shelter, and more to improve the quality of their life.

In his article “Is California the welfare capital?” Michael Gardner states California has one of the nation’s highest welfare recipient.it comes third compared to other states. This is mainly a result of democratic dominance in the state and their heavy focus on social services. The author argues the size of California’s welfare rolls is disproportionate considering the state has only 12 percent of the nations population. Some of it has to do with benefits generosity and others point to several socio-economic factors. In support of the main point of view of the author, California pays out a maximum of $638 in cash grants making it one of the highest states in grants payment. However, Gardner highlights the cost of housing in the state eats

One of the major welfare abuses is “double-dipping” (working and illegally continuing to receive welfare and/or food stamp benefits). Double-dipping costs the welfare system millions of dollars annually. Cooperation between local welfare and law enforcement agencies can

As societies evolve, so do the problems they face. As America entered the 1990’s, more single women than ever were struggling to support their children. From 1970 to 1993, the number of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children increased 91 percent (Hombs 52). Single mothers that had children as a result of a rape or wedlock could not partake welfare programs that demanded job participation because for fearing of leaving their children unattended. The Presidential Election in 1996 was largely influenced by each candidate’s plan to provide single mothers with proper benefits. Upon election, President Bill Clinton radically changed welfare by lowering the requirements for eligibility for programs such as AFDC, increasing the amount of aid a recipient could get, and allowing the recipients to keep more of the wages they had earned (Hombs 7). Unfortunately, these alterations made it easy for recipients to abuse the system by encouraging many to simply rely on welfare checks to sustain them financially. Looking back on Robert Rector’s disturbing study that one third of welfare recipients are taking illegal drugs, something must be done to hold those receiving aid accountable.

Over the past few years, there has been a lot of controversy over whether or not those who test positive for drugs should be able to receive welfare. It was an argument that flooded social media, arguments filling comments with opinions. It is a subject that continues to be discussed within our peer groups, our communities, and our states. This paper will discuss the opinions of individual’s within the country, the beneficial factors of drug testing welfare recipients as well as the unbeneficial factors, as well as who decides if drug testing welfare recipients goes into effect or not.

In today’s America, government aid is highly depended on. The US government has spent $498 billion dollars this year on welfare alone. The state of Tennessee has an average of 250,000 residents on welfare and has $3 billion dollars this year alone. To help cut costs and help tax payers, 36 states, including Tennessee, have proposed a bill to drug test all welfare recipients. Since the beginning of the year, the welfare rate has jumped 7 percent while at the same time, the welfare funds are drying up. Tennessee funds have dropped 17.5 percent, which comes out to be about $215.3 million dollars this year. State lawmakers have proposed that if drug users on welfare are

Chapter 25: “All California quickens with produce, and the fruit grows heavy, and the limbs bend gradually under the fruit so that little crutches must be placed under them to support the weight.” (25, pg 346) California is deceptively beautiful and rich. There is food all around the starving masses, but no one can eat or touch any of

109,631,000 Americans receive benefits from one or more federal funded programs. Throughout this project, I will be talking about different subjects related to government assistance. I will be referring to the new subject being recently talked about here in Wisconsin, drug testing welfare recipients. I also will be talking about the good and bad in government assistance, that relates back to government assistance abuse. When talking about abuse in government assistance, additionally will be talking about better monitoring in certain situations. Many thoughts go through everyday taxpayers on why they should be the ones paying for others to get help, especially when individuals do not have an idea about getting a job to get back on their feet.

When people are working, many think that everything is great and nothing will happen to their good life, but in some cases they are fired out of the blue and don’t have anything to fall back on. It is for instances such as these that welfare needs to be available to people who genuinely need help from the government. Some believe that the government should become more selective in choosing recipients of welfare in order to prevent people from taking advantage of the programs, but the government should remember that many citizens (about 35.4% of the population) depend on government aid such as Medicaid, SNAP, food stamps, etc.

During Ronald Reagan’s rise to power, California was a hub of cultural change and ethnic diversity. Nevertheless, California embodied the American ideals of opportunity that proliferated during the era- the opportunity for prosperity and success and upward social mobility through hard work. The economic output of the “nation’s state” was spectacular, rivaling even some of the largest nations of the time, surpassed only by six other nations. (Governor Reagan) This unmatched economic dominance was the perfect location for the always optimistic and greater than life newcomer Ronald Reagan. Yet, this period of unrestrained growth proved extremely burdensome for California as taxes increased and agricultural lands were being destroyed to house the growing population. (A Modern Economy) By 1963, California became the most populous state, exceeding the size of New York, due in part to its influx in population growth following World War 2. (A Modern Economy) College groups protested for change and race riots swept the State. The social unrest of the time lent itself to the way Ronald Reagan was perceived (and ultimately accepted) when he stepped into the political arena. He was the great optimist, exhibiting bravery in the face of adversity. He was the ardent Republican who fought for the rights of the citizens and believed in the future. This persona however, just like California, was much more complex.

California, a state loved for its fabulous warm weather and vast doors of opportunities. The state captivates people by its beauty, but also the chance to a prosperous future. A quality of lifestyle CA promises, its vast landscapes, a place where big industries have grown, and Hollywood where the brightest stars shine. These are a few points that make California great. There are plenty who immigrate to this state, most seeking that long cherish dream. A dream fueled by desire in order to surpass current limitations and reach individual happiness. The state of California welcomes everyone with open arms, for those seeking California as their new home. James J. Rawls, a history professor at Diablo Valley College; discusses the beauty of California, but in “California-A place, A people, A dream” he also demonstrates the dark truth of CA hides, which he calls California paradoxes (Rawls). Here is where the paradox of growth comes into play on his writing. This has led to many problems over CA long course of history.

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).