Essays /

Can Welfare Programs Combat Poverty Essay

Essay preview

BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY |
Can Welfare Programs Combat Poverty? |
Dr. Lewis US NATIONAL GOVERNMENT |
|
By David Chijioke |
11/8/2012 |

Can Welfare Programs Combat Poverty?

The welfare system was intended to help aid families in need, that is, families who have no food, clothing or shelter. However, after decades of welfare recipients being passed through the system, it can only be concluded that welfare has only hurt the economy and nation. Welfare programs can not completely fight against poverty.

Poverty has not decreased since welfare began in the 1930's. To be considered eligible for welfare a person must show up and fill out paper work. If considered eligible and meets the states requirements for welfare, than that person is now on welfare and will be receiving benefits shortly. Many times, women with young children are not even expected to work. These women can stay home and spend time with their children as they grow up and evolve into young adults. However, millions of blue and white collar workers are forced to send their children to daycare or other facilities to take care of their children; so they can go to work to support their families. Welfare has hurt the United States throughout the past century. Welfare programs, currently forcing the United States into debt, ruin and poverty, are used by millions of people everyday. Though millions of people need government assistance to survive, these people have misused the system and created a long term dependency on welfare. Therefore, to eliminate poverty, ruin, and debit, government programs such as welfare should be abolished.

Since the Welfare Reform Act, the act that created welfare and eventually evolved into the present day welfare system, government officials and millions of Americas have said that Welfare and government assistance programs will stop poverty. However, history has proven that within two years after Lyndon B. Johnson launched the Unconditional War on Poverty, there was an escalation in public assistance payments (Armey 2). Many organizations that support government aid to the poor claimed that the poor simply needed an "opportunity" and that once given the same chances as everyone else the poor would succeed and better their own lives (Payne 118). One of the biggest ideas, some would say misconceptions, about welfare is that welfare recipients are "lazy". However no study has been able to prove that welfare recipients are lazy (Bender 76). However, many critics believe that "the best possible social program is a job". People often believe a job is the best way to get people off of welfare because studies have proven that it is better for the poor to work than to receive handouts, because working will motivate them to better themselves (Payne 115). Republican Congressman Dick Armey said; "An increase in welfare leads to a decrease in the earned income of the recipients" (Bender 35). In addition, there have also been numerous studies that show the higher the welfare benefits, the more likelihood there will be a decrease in work effort as well as an increase in welfare dependency (Armey 2). Other studies have shown that eighteen percent of people on welfare moved out of poverty, however, forty-five percent of people not on welfare, but in poverty, got themselves out of poverty without government help (Bender 37). "Many people regard handouts as self-esteem defeating. Handouts condition welfare recipients to become more dependent on others and encourage irresponsible behaving such as starting a family without adequate finance" (Payne115). Welfare is not st...

Read more

Keywords

/besharov-baltimores-poverty-rate-unchanged-1-4-residents?destination=node/5317 /economic/jim_bender_welfare_+_poverty.htm /economic/robert_bennett_welfare_+_poverty.htm /tx/dick_armey_welfare_+_poverty.htm 1 10.00 11/8/2012 114 115 117 118 16 18 19 1930 1960 1988 1992 1996 1998 2 20 22 25 29 3 35 36 37 38 4 59 60 64 65 69 76 77 8.00 80 abl abolish abus accept access accord accur achiev act activ addict addit adequ adult advantag advoc afford age agre aid alcohol almsgiv alon also altern although america american among amount analysi analyz anyon appli area aris armey aspir assist attend attent audrey avail averag avoid away b babi babysit back bad baisc base becom began behav behavior believ bender benefit bennett besharov besid best better bibliographi biggest bill birth blue book born bowi bring broke broken buy cannot capabl care carefre careless centuri certain chanc chang chariti check chijiok child children choos citizen claim class clinton cloth collar collect colleg combat come comfort common complet conceiv conclud condit congressman connecticut consid contend continu contribut cost could countri cours creat crime critic current curriculum cycl d damag danger david day daycar deal debit debt decad decay decid declin decreas deepli defeat depend desir determin dick differ difficulti diploma direct disagre disciplin discov distributor doesn dollar dr dramat drastic drug dumb earn easier easili econom economi educ effort eight eighteen elder elig elimin els emot encourag end engag enrol entri environ escal essenti esteem even eventu everyday everyon evolv exceed expect experi extrem face facil fact fall famili father fatherless feder feed feel femal fight fill financ financi first five food forc forev form forti forty-f fund get give given go good goods/money/services got govern graduat grant great greater groceri group grow half handout head help helpless high higher highest histori home hour household howev hurt husband idea ideal ignor illegitimaci immatur improv incent includ incom increas individu industri instead intend involv iq irrat irrespons isn issu item j job johnson juli keep l lack larger later launch lazi lead leader learn length less level levert lewi life lifetim like likelihood limit live lock long longer low lower lyndon made major make male man mani marit marri marriag mass matur mean meet member middl million misconcept misus mix model money money/good/services moral most mother motiv move much murray must n.d nation necessari need neighborhood never new nineteen nineteenth normal noth number numer obtain offer offici often old older one ontheissu ontheissues.org opportun order organ other overal overcom paper parent parenthood part particip pass past pay payment payn payne115 peopl percent period person place point poor possibl potenti poverti prefer pregnanc pregnant prep present privat problem product program promiscu prove proven provid psycholog psychopath public purpos put q question quick r rais rate receiv recipi reform regard relat reli reliant republican requir respons retriev ridicul rierden right risk road role row ruin sacrif said save say scale school self self-esteem self-suffici send separ servic seventeen sexual shelter short show shown simpli sinc singl single-head six size skill social societi sole someon someth sort specialist spend stabl stamp standard start state statist stay stop student studi succeed success suffici suicid support surest survey surviv system take taken talk target tax taxpay teach teen teenag temporari term therefor think though three throughout tie time today togeth tradit transport treat trend tripl truli trust turn two type uncondit uncontribut underclass unemploy unhappi unit univers unlik unmarri unproduct us use violenc war way weak wed wed-lock welfar well whether white wish within without women work worker world would www.ontheissues.org www.ontheissues.org/economic/jim_bender_welfare_+_poverty.htm www.ontheissues.org/economic/robert_bennett_welfare_+_poverty.htm www.ontheissues.org/tx/dick_armey_welfare_+_poverty.htm www.publicpolicy.umd.edu www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/besharov-baltimores-poverty-rate-unchanged-1-4-residents?destination=node/5317 year york young youth