Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was an attempt by the government to get people to be more efficient and less reliant on the government. There was a sort of “exchange” between the government and citizens. Citizens work and in return they receive financial assistances. This is referred to as the TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. It was supposed to motivate people to work, or that was the goal. Recipients were required to work at least 20 hours a week. This was actually successful in decreasing the number of Americans who were dependent on welfare systems. As diversity greatly increased, the need for welfare also increased. Welfare reform efforts were attempted because of the various changes occurring. Welfare in the United States is

Since the creation of the United States, they loathed taxes, especially when the British taxed them without any representation. The United States anger towards taxes started the American Revolution; However, the United States needed some form of taxes to pay for the military. The military and several other things are what makes a country; however, there are some things that taxes pay for that should either be terminated or improved. A few things that taxes pay for does not contribute to the economy, instead, it costs the taxpayers excessive amount of tax money. In order for the country to decrease taxes or contribute to more education, security, and modern infrastructure, they need to terminate or improve the welfare and the war on drugs.

The current (US) welfare reform consists of more than cash payment that the poor US citizen could bank on. There is a monthly payment that each poor person received in spite of their ability to work. The main people who received this payment were both mothers and children. Moreover, the payment does not have time limit and those people could not remain on the welfare for the rest of their live.

Changes within the welfare system as a result of policy shifts and by new thinking, more generally in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have had many methods, but the one that seemed most important, was that welfare recipients were required to do much more to justify their income support payments than before. The foundation of this new idea is that income support programs should allow individuals to maximise their participation in work. Due to the general shift in welfare administration, the number of activity test requirements an individual in Australia must meet in order to receive unemployment benefits, has expanded significantly since the early 1990s. This complex, overly bureaucratic process means that disadvantaged individuals cannot access the income support payments they require.

Unfortunately, the author eludes that the U.S. is no longer top on the list. Along with a decreased education rate, universities began accepting students more for economic status over merit value. This contributed to the positive trend of financial aid be given leaving it at roughly 247 billion dollars per year. This author mentions that this has a major impact of the decisions of lower income students to even strive to continue their education. In efforts to propose another plan to fix the controversy a program named America’s Promise was developed along with a couple of statewide programs very similar to Governor Cuomo’s. Georgia is one of the states that implemented these programs and has found a higher attendance rate in young individuals however find that the criteria may be too hard for low income students to meet. Kamentez writes that self paced online courses have been offered but self motivation has proved to an issue. The controversy continues and many new developments are being made, however, college will always be invaluable no matter the economic cost

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) replaced AFDC, ending some Federal responsibility to welfare assistance. States operate their own programs; determine eligibility services to be provided to needy families, within Federal guidelines. The Federal government cannot regulate the conduct of states except to a few requirements, and states have a wide latitude in administering the program to "provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and

"The U.S. Congress kicked off welfare reform nationwide last October with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, heralding a new era in which welfare recipients are required to look for work as a condition of benefits." http://www.detnews.com/1997/newsx/welfare/rules/rules.htm. Originally, the welfare system was created to help poor men, women, and children who are in need of financial and medical assistance. Over the years, welfare has become a way of life for its recipients and has created a culture of dependency. Currently, the government is in the process of reforming the welfare system. The welfare reform system’s objective was to get people off the welfare system and onto the

One reform argument is centered on the ?burden? for taxpayers to support people who are not trying to help themselves. Gilens reported, ?The economic self-interest explanation of welfare reform is widely assumed to be true, and debates over public policy often remain on the assumption that the middle class resent paying for programs that benefit only the poor? (Gilens, p. 2, 1996). Reform efforts often focus on general stereotypes of welfare recipients not wanting to work and preferring to take advantage of taxpayer money. Conservatives and liberals refer to ?welfare spending? as excessive and unnecessary. However, prior to the popularity of welfare reform, the U.S. Bureau of Census reported actual money spent on AFDC was only 7% of the $613 billion spend on social welfare which included health care, veterans? programs, education, housing, and pubic aid (tables 579, 583, 1993). With government statistics contradicting claims of excessive spending, there is

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.

Poverty in the suburbs has been a huge struggle for the government and its citizens. The suburbs make up about 60% of our nation’s populations. (Berube & Kneebone, 2013) Between 2000 and 2013, the suburban poor made up 56% of our nations poverty rate. Overall, poverty has increased and shifted substantially from just low income families to the working class. The main reason is wages are not covering individual needs. In efforts of the government, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was established. In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was implemented. Federal welfare reform gave permission to states allowing them the opportunity to reform their welfare systems.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was enacted in order to change the current welfare policy at the time. This welfare policy that existed was originally meant to provide financial assistance as well as decent healthcare coverage during times of economic hardship (Kaestner, 2004). This policy was implemented as a way to help hundreds of thousands of families overcome financial hurdles. However, the idea behind the reforming of welfare was to avoid the stereotypical individuals that lived off of welfare to continue doing so. Evidence existed that concluded that people who lived off of government welfare assistance were actually allowing this system to destroy their desire to work and sustain themselves (Rector & Marshall, 2013). Welfare was seen as a detrimental part of the government and it was viewed as feeding into a lazy and poorly disciplined class of individuals. Welfare's initial intention was to aid widows who had children to support, but in a matter of decades the entire welfare system converted from being a safety net for individuals in dire times of need, to a support system for able-bodied men who lacked motivation to find employment and sustain themselves and their families (Rector & Marshall, 2013). The Welfare Reform Act came as a way to remedy these problems. Stipulations were put on those applying to receive welfare benefits. Limits were enacted that would reduce the amount of time that people could receive the benefits in order to speed up their

What would happen if the government made changes to the welfare system? There are approximately 110,489,000 of Americans on welfare. Many people benefit from what the system has to offer: food stamps, housing, health insurance, day care, and unemployment. Taxpayers often argue that the individuals who benefit from the system, abuse the system; however, this is not entirely true. Many of the people who receive benefits really and truly need the help. Even though some people believe welfare should be reformed, welfare should not be reformed because 40% of single mothers are poor, some elderly people do not have a support system, and college students can not afford to take extra loans.

"Welfare 's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." Ronald Reagan said this statement on January of 1970 when the "Los Angeles Times" interviewed him (Williamson). Federal government funded welfare in the United States started in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Because of the vast numbers of people out of work and with insufficient funds to buy food for their families, President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved a program to give money to state governments for the purpose of making jobs so that unemployed people could work (Bill). This start of federal aid was the beginning of what we know welfare to be today. This paper will show whether or not welfare works in our society, whether or not the U.S. should reform it, and if this nation should even have welfare for those who cannot work.

Presently, the availability of educational opportunities at the college and university level is a critical state and personal interest given the needs of the state for a well-educated workforce which has never been greater. Too many, the focal point of attending college is receiving a high paying job in the future. Unfortunately, in most states, tuition is on the rise and students who come from low-income families find themselves struggling to fund their education. According to legislatures, “The cost of college in New Jersey, as in the nation, continues to grow faster than the rate of inflation.” (State of New Jersey 1). In the national financial aid policy resources that are typically given to the neediest families are shifting towards

I make my way to the podium on the stage, and place my name placard before me, on it is MO-SCANLAN, and I gaze out at my audience of 350+ delegates, waiting patiently to hear what I have to say. Glancing to my left, I see Victor Agbafe, the young man who was thrust into the spotlight earlier that year after being accepted to all eight Ivy League schools, who was my collaborator for this speech because of all of the people in this room, he chose me to accompany him. Without a moment’s hesitation I delve into my speech supporting welfare reforms for larger families in low income areas throughout the United States, a speech that was met with a wave of approval from the audience as I passed the torch to Victor so that he could build upon the points I addressed. As I stepped down from the stage after Victor had finished, and made my way back to my seat amongst the sea of praise I was receiving from my peers, I couldn’t help but smile at the thought that the young man that had stood confidently before this room at the Youth Conference of National Affairs could hardly be recognized as the same quiet little boy that was told in Mrs. Lynn’s 5th grade class that he wasn’t cool enough to have an opinion in a conversation, the same kid that could sometimes be found in the library reading books rather than on the playground running around.