The Government Should Not Run Welfare Programs

The welfare system first came into action during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unemployed citizens needed federal assistance to escape the reality of severe poverty. The welfare system supplies families with services such as: food stamps, medicaid, and housing among others. The welfare system has played a vital role in the US, in controlling the amount of poverty to a certain level. Sadly, the system has been abused and taken for granted by citizens across the country. The welfare system was previously controlled by the federal government until 1996; the federal government handed over the responsibility to the states in hope of reducing welfare abuse. However, this change has not prevented folks from scamming the system. The

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.

Welfare, enacted by one of the greatest presidents of the United States’s existence, Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, is an effective and useful means to assist American families in need. Throughout history, welfare has proven to help people get back on their feet and into society. Despite the system’s many useful benefits, like most attributes in this world, welfare has kinks in the system. In fact, welfare has yet to be perfected, even though it was established in the year of 1935 and is still in use today. The system may never be perfected, but it can be improved. There are many different thoughts and ideas pertaining to how welfare should change. Some believe it should be eliminated entirely. In doing so, many people all across the nation would be harmed in financial and mental manners. How can welfare be reformed? Is it even possible? The answer is absolutely. It must be reformed, and many would agree on the matter. It is, however, a sensitive and controversial topic to most. Political parties tend to take interest in the discussion of welfare reform, as well. The typical, left-wing Democrat wishes to give more to welfare users, while the standard right-wing Republican would like to decrease what is given to Americans. If everything has its imperfections, why should welfare be reformed? Why not leave it the way it is and let the government figure out the fine print? There are those that take this sort of stance on welfare reform, and there are some that believe differently.

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.

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

“The federal government currently funds 126 separate anti-poverty programs at an annual cost of $688 billion. Of these, 72 provide cash or other benefits directly to poor families” (Tanner). Welfare is a broken system that needs to be fixed because it is teaching the current generation the wrong way to live, encourages people to not work for what they need or want, and lacks accountability for how or where the money is being spent.

By requiring people on welfare to work, and assisting them to get low-paying jobs if nothing else, the state and local governments give the people incentive to get better paying jobs and keep them. I read an article once that showed the correlation between government-assisted welfare workers and full-time permanent employment of those same workers later. I firmly believe that people will help and support themselves if given a decent chance. This country is founded on the idea of self-sufficiency. We are taught this in the public schools from the first day. We are trained not to cheat, not to steal answers from another person's paper, and not to depend on others to do our work for us. It seems to be an innate human quality that people want to rely on upon themselves and achieve goals on their own. When people who are down on their luck are given a helping hand, often they will move from

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,

In the last 15 years the welfare system has gone from a government run system, to a state run function. This actually promotes a better welfare system that is in favor of all who are involved, including the tax payers whom ultimately fund it. Creating a program that helps prevent drug use while on welfare, and promoting families to find jobs helps everyone in the long run. The real ethical dilemma comes from the effects on families who are on welfare, and have it taken away due to time constraints. Ethical concerns created by welfare affect the families on welfare, as well as

In the United States there are “over 100 million people receiving some form of federal welfare” (Munoz#7). The purpose of creating the welfare system was to provide aid to those families with “little to no income” (article 1). Back in 1996 Clinton passed the welfare reform act; allowing state full control of the welfare system. The Welfare Reform Act was to help steer welfare

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

As I talked about previously there are certain stereotypes of welfare recipients, some true, many not. A lot of American citizens believe all those stereotypes to be true, and therefore, a great majority of public opinion is against welfare programs. In return, this drives political officials away from helping people who rely government aid and in a lot of circumstances when officials are involved it is to reduce that aid, not give them a voice. “Policies that have determent impacts on, or are ineffective in solving important problems for, certain types of target populations may not produce citizen participation directed toward policy change because the messages received by these target populations encourage withdrawal or passivity” (Schneider,

The United States government is set up in a way to provide assistance to the people who need it. A family in poverty is one that falls below the poverty line. The line is determined by the amount people spend in order to sustain themselves. There is a difference between impoverished homes and homes of people who are low income. The impoverished homes barely earn enough money to maintain sustain themselves and the members of their families with food, shelter, and clothing. The other people may not be rich, but they are able to maintain a lifestyle that keeps them healthy. Neither of these home lives relate to the level of happiness a family experiences. The government is focused more on the maintenance of life and not so much the quality of the life itself. In comparing and contrasting welfare programs against a minimum wage, a minimum wage law would be the wiser choice for the government to pursue. In the end, people will be able to choose to do as they please with the money they earn meaning they will be happier. With a utilitarian perspective, I believe this is the way to go.

When the topic of welfare is brought into an ethical discussion most individuals would surely see it as an ethical act that genuinely helps those in need. This is true to an extent, but is it possible that welfare does more harm than good? Most would argue that the hand out of money to those less fortunate is being socially responsible. The question that drives this ethical issue is where does social responsibility end and personal responsibility pick up? This question is difficult to answer because every family in need is in a different situation. Government benefits are supposed to be used as a crutch for families to get back on their feet, but about

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