POLI 330N Week 6 Discussion Question 1, Welfare Systems

This is a graded discussion: 20 points possible

WEEK 6: WELFARE SYSTEMS

Examine the efficacy of U.S. welfare programs. What do such programs intend to accomplish? What are some criticisms against them? Be sure to cite specific academic examples, not just ones from your opinion.

Hello Professor and classmates! Welfare is a federally funded program, created during the Great Depression in the 1930’s that was intended to aide lower or no income families and individuals. There are different amounts and types of welfare available for individuals and dependent children that vary from state to state. The federal government gave control to the states of these programs. “Most states offer basic aid such as health care, food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance” (US Welfare System, n.d.). There are a variety of types of assistance that can be obtained by lower-income families and individuals.

There are, however, many criticisms against some of these programs from both recipients and government officials as well. Some people believe that if we eliminate welfare we can cut taxes. These people feel that welfare is draining our system of funds. However, according to Roskin, “welfare” is not the problem; entitlements are. Cuts in welfare spending save little and inflict hardship on society’s most vulnerable members, especially children” (10/2013, p. 272). Also, some conservatives believe that welfare programs do little to encourage people to get off of the program, also known as welfare dependency. This can lead to a subculture of crime and drugs.

There is one relative opinion that seems to be a general consensus that many believe in. Many people, myself included, feel that any type of welfare program should incorporate a drug screening into it. There are at least 15 states that have passed legislation regarding drug testing for public assistance programs applicants and recipients. It is not so cut and dry of a case though for every state. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), “Marchwinski v. Howard ruled that subjecting every welfare applicant in Michigan to a drug test without reason to believe that drugs were being used, was unconstitutional.” I truly believe that every applicant and recipient of a welfare program should be drug screened initially and randomly while receiving this assistance. I don’t believe that if you are willing to accept state and federally funded financial assistance that any money should be used towards drugs or alcohol.

Reference:

(n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2017, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821

US Welfare System – Help for US Citizens. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2017, from http://www.welfareinfo.org/

As much as we tend to focus on the Welfare issues, it is actually a small percentage of government funding when compared to other countries (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, & Jones, 10/2013). It seems that there is more focus on the issues in the rural South where there seems to be more living in poverty. However, there are also more living below poverty level in the inner city of major cities in the U.S. than in the same amount of square miles in rural cities/towns.

According to Rector (2015), the Census Bureau does not accurately measure the income for poverty level because they do not count any benefits from government funded programs. People receiving assistance such as public or section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc., do not count this toward their income on the Census (Rectory, 2015). However, those receiving social security or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families must report this as income.

My question is how can the government require elderly or disabled citizens to report their social security income on their taxes and to the Census Bureau but those receiving government aid under the Welfare system do not? Many who receive this assistance bring more income into their household due to the assistance than those only receiving social security. Many receiving welfare assistance also work, so they have even more income. There are certified nursing assistants working for my company that are working full time hours, but they still receive government assistance. I believe these are the people who probably need the assistance. Also, those who are disabled and physically unable to work. Giving people this assistance because they want to continue birthing babies to get the assistance and receive aide without being made to work does not make sense to me.

As you addressed, also, drug-screening is a very large debate. I agree with implementing this in all states. It is the same as if they were working for any company. I was drug-screened prior to being hired into any job I have ever had, and I can be randomly drug-screened without reason at any time. If people are receiving assistance which replaces the income they would have if they were working, I don’t see why it should not be a requirement.

Leona

References:

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821

Rector, Robert (2015). Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-the-united-states-and-other-nations

Hi Leona! Your post showed me a part of welfare that I was unaware of. I did not know that people on Social Security or TANF have to count that towards their income to the Census Bureau compared to people who are on Medicaid, Food Stamps and Section 8 housing that don’t. I don’t think it’s right or fair because that would mean that the Census Bureau does not have an accurate amount of the income of families and individuals who are on welfare.

Also, I agree with your statement regarding some people who seem to use the system to have more children and don’t seem to have any intention of working or increasing their education even. This is also another reason why I think there should be mandatory drug testing in all states. If they are planning on having more children, just to achieve more money and benefits from the state, to then turn around and use this money on drugs or alcohol, that is just plain ridiculous. But this is how this pattern of using the system seems to go. It’s a terrible thing when people who abuse this system because there are others out there who really need these benefits and programs but are unable to get it. A great example of this is in my area recently, 23 people were charged in a Welfare fraud investigation that was done by the District Attorney’s office, the sheriff department and the Department of Social Services Special Investigations. According to Yakin from the Times Herald Record, “The defendants were charged with improperly collecting a total of $220,572 benefits from the Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), child-care benefits, Temporary Assistance and Medicaid benefits, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office” (7/17). This is just one example of how people take advantage of our welfare system. It is a tragedy to see how many people misuse programs that are intended to aid the poor.

Reference:

Yakin, H. (2017, July 05). 23 charged in Orange County welfare fraud sweep. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from http://www.recordonline.com/news/20170705/23-charged-in-orange-county-welfare-fraud-sweep

Kanice,

The sad thing is that the same situation is probably happening a lot more than is known. Welfare was created to assist those who were unable to support themselves and their family temporarily. I think the problem is that stipulations were not set in place properly, and positions needed to be created to regulate and monitor who gets what and when. I am sure the ideas were there. However, the welfare system has grown so big that it is difficult to regulate and monitor the details.

I work in private duty, and patient’s have to have medicaid in order to qualify for our services. It is amazing the wide array of the types of patients we care for. We had a patient a while back that was receiving Medicaid because he became disabled. We knew he had a history of drug use, but he us just hospitalized for his injury, so we did not believe he had access to anything. However, after being a patient of ours for about six months, he apparently became comfortable enough to leave his paraphernalia lying where our nursing aide saw it. She called immediately and reported that she had seen him shoot up heroin. We reported this to Medicaid, discharged him, and he lost his Medicaid privileges. This is the one time the process worked properly. Instead of continuing to give the patient Medicaid, they revoked it because there was evidence of drug use and it was witnessed.

Kandice and Leona:

You both had fantastic posts which enlightened me greatly.  I support and value the welfare system for those in true need, but agree strongly there needs to be a better checks and balances on the benefit as in drug testing, spending limitations and  responsible birth control.  Abuse of the system in regards to these parameters is a real issue and one I think needs a stronger political stance.

Michelle

Great post!

I am also a firm believer that the working people are the ones that should be aided instead of individuals who believe that it is ok to keep reproducing and not contribute to the betterment of this society. It is extremely frustrating to see individuals that have decided that education, or working is a waste because they are content with living on government aid. Do not get me wrong though, there are definitely situations that should be supplemented but it all needs to be re-looked at. There should be some type of society related contribution, even a work from home program maybe.

Leona,

I enjoyed reading your post! I believe the intentions of welfare have always been positive.

“The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) enacted in 1996 set forth three legislative goals: 1) to reduce dependence; 2) to reduce child poverty; and 3) to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage. The reform has been effective in meeting each of these goals.” (www.heritage.org (Links to an external site.))

I believe that there are people that deserve and need extra help. If the person receiving benefits is trying and working to better themselves and needs a little help that is fine. The programs are putting tons of money into the system for the wrong reasons. People that are taking advantage of the system by not working. These same people don’t have any intentions on working. They also continue to have more children and continue to need help. I am a firm believer that people who take need benefits have to abide by certain standards and requirements. I believe they should be required to adhere to random drug tests and required to seek and maintain employment as long as they are able.

I too agreed with the drug testing for welfare recipients. However after further research I came to realize that there have been many studies in the states that have passed the welfare drug screening and it seems that the cost of the testing compared to the low number of individuals that tested positive. According to thinkprogress.org it has shown that this would not be financially beneficial. I was so surprised.

Reference

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states-discovered-after-spending-more-than-1-million-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d/ (Links to an external site.)

Professor Terwilliger and Class,

Welfare can be simply defined as a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens without current sufficient means to support basic needs such as food, housing, and medical care to name a few.  The intention of welfare from the initiation was to provide an adequate amount of sources to cover the aforementioned basic needs for those who could not afford the necessities.  The food stamp program was introduced for citizens to acquire essential food/drink through government provisions.  Healthcare was reformed to enact Medicare and Medicaid for elderly and is continually reformed Obamacare was authorized to ensure all Americans could receive medical care.  HUD (Housing and Urban Development) was founded to afford rental assistance, public housing and various community development grants.  There were more programs founded under the Welfare umbrella over the years since the establishment, but those three are major and still in progress today; however, the ultimate goal remains the same regardless of what type of assistance is being provided.

Criticisms toward the welfare program have been plentiful over the years.  With regard to the food stamps program, fraud became a big issue.  Stamps were being issued under the guise of poverty, but were resold by those granted stamps and being used to make personal purchases such as liquor and drugs.  Once reformed from stamps to debit cards with the goal of reducing deception, deception continued and continues to occur.  The criticism is that people are receiving handouts without working, or even attempting to work, for their allowances.  This drove people to do less and receive more while crying poverty.  It’s lazy and it’s entitled and it’s still an issue today.  Just 5 years ago, 48 million Americans were receiving upwards of $134 a month per person.  That’s a large number and that’s a lot of funding; I am in no position to insinuate how or why those 48 million Americans received assistance, but I can appreciate the 1996 welfare reform plan to give recipients 5 years to get off welfare with the purpose to enforce many people work, or attempt to work, for what they have (Roskin, p.273).

– Dana

Reference: Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.

Hi Dana! I also share your appreciation of the 1996 welfare reform plan. According to Roskin, “The total number of welfare recipients dropped from 12.2 million in 1996 to 5.8 million in 2000, a decline that does not necessarily mean they got out of poverty; they just got off welfare” (10/2013, p. 274). It is still a wonderful and impressive improvement in the right direction to see these results of that reform. Also, regarding your statements on the food stamps being reformed to debit cards to prevent fraud, I thought that was a fabulous improvement as well. I still strongly believe that all people who apply for any welfare program should be initially drug tested and randomly throughout the time that they are receiving it.

Reference:

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821

Dana and Kandice:

In response to your post, I agree with your statements and feel we should e doing more to help our citizens get off welfare.  The 1996 welfare plan attempted to “end welfare as we know it.” (2017, p. 274).  It added to have the citizens receiving welfare to take some jobs or get training for jobs.  The difficulty with this is the level of literacy that these citizens have.  In a study in 2013 found the following, “The U.S. ranked 16th out of 23 countries in literacy proficiency, 21st in numeracy proficiency, and 14th in problem-solving in technology-rich environments, according to the OECD survey.” (Rogers, 2013).  This study was adults that have had a formal education that was in the survey.  This is troubling especially when we want to educate citizens to do jobs and to make a living on their own.

Once we get these citizens educated is there jobs for them or are they all offshored because of the cost?  How can this system work, if we do not have everyone working together to improve?  Working in healthcare I see a good share of these citizens.  They use the emergency department for their primary care site with the Medicaid program that they have.  This is also eating at the deficit in our country.

Where is it going to go?  Not sure but this is a great country and we are trying to help all our citizens.

Rory

Reference:

Roskin, M.G., Cord, R.L., James A Medeiros, Jones, W.S. Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. 2014.

Rogers, M., Troubling Stats on Adult Literacy, Inside Higher Ed., October 8, 2013. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/08/us-adults-rank-below-average-global-survey-basic-education-skills (Links to an external site.)

Dana,

Great post, and I concur with your stance.  I too agree I am not one to judge or “insinuate” as you stated why ppl receive assistance.  I support welfare and its intention to hep those in need.  However, I cannot help but to question the vetting process and ongoing needs assessments.  For example, I cannot tell you how many times I have been in line at the grocery store when the person in front of me is using food stamps.  Again, not meaning to judge, but that same person is dressed to the nines, with their Michael Kors purse, newest I phone and kids wearing top end attire with their own cellphones in hand.  You can’t help but to “judge” on how they can afford that type of cost of living yet need food stamps?

Michelle,

I completely agree with your post! More times than not you see people that live in government housing yet drive expensive cars and wear clothes and accessories that cost more than my entire wardrobe. How do they qualify? The programs are not out there to save a person money so they can afford more expensive things. They are put into place to provide basic living needs. To add to your thoughts, it is estimated that “improper welfare payments, including fraud, are estimated to be 10.1% of all federal welfare payments made and totaled $71.5 billion in fiscal year 2015. This estimate is based on reports from the Office of Management and Budget.” (www.federalsafetynet.org (Links to an external site.))

‘Improper payments’ occur when:

funds go to the wrong recipient;
the right recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (including over payments and underpayments);
documentation is not available to support a payment; or
the recipient uses funds in an improper manner.
Obviously the systems need to be tightened up and managed better.

Collapse SubdiscussionJOEL TERWILLIGERJOEL TERWILLIGER
Nov 26, 2017Nov 26, 2017 at 8:43am
Manage Discussion Entry

Principles, goals, and the political process

In reviewing the entitlement system and its components, think about the principles or goals that the system is intended to accomplish. Then, let’s discuss whether the political process works to enact those principles or goals. Let’s also think about ways the process could be improved by focusing on specific examples.

This should be a fun discussion this week! As I noted above, let’s focus on academic examples and principles and avoid merely posting an opinion that lacks research to support the conclusion. Thanks.

Collapse SubdiscussionDana WrightDana Wright
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 12:28pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger,

“Since the middle 1980s, entitlement programs have accounted for more than half of all federal spending.  The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans’ Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.” (auburn.edu).  The principles behind the existence of entitlement programs is rooted in social equality by providing individuals with personal financial benefits.  With regard to Medicare, a major federal entitlement program, millions of older Americans are given access to doctors, hospitals and, in a relatively recent addition to its menu of benefits, prescription drugs. “Older Americans on Medicare are spending less time in the hospital, with an estimated 3.5 million fewer hospitalizations in 2013 than in 1999, and beneficiaries are living longer. The average cost of a hospital stay dropped during 15 years from $3,290 to $2,801 in inflation-adjusted dollars for patients in the traditional Medicare program.”  The current debate is over whether the country spends too much yearly on Medicare and Medicaid with the enactment of Obamacare that provides health insurance to millions who did not have coverage in the past.  So while there are deliberations over whether the political process is working to enact the goals of this specific entitlement program, fighting to make sure Americans have health coverage at an affordable cost is absolutely working to the favor of the American public.  Medicare had a financial cost increase to 3% in 2014 and is expected to only increase to 4.7% by 2040.

The food stamp program has been adapted to work in favor of the American public.  Food stamps were eliminated and revamped into debit cards as part of the SNAP program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) to make the access of food at grocery stores, convenience stores, and some farmers’ markets and co-op food programs.  Additionally, the use of debit cards reduces the chances for misuse and fraud.  With respect to the politics involved related to SNAP, the current President has proposed a $193 billion cut over the course of 10 years to the program.  Furthermore, a $1 trillion cut over 10 years to other entitlement programs (including Medicare) was proposed.  So while it appears the goals and principles of entitlement programs are the same and the supreme goal of their being, different political groups have different agendas for the programs and even our current leadership has a plan that does not appear to bode well for Americans, or the programs themselves.  The budget cuts are intended to work in favor of the programs to the benefit of the public; whether or not that proves true will be seen over the course of the current administration and the execution of their budget plans.

– Dana

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program (Links to an external site.)

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/30/the-politics-of-medicare-and-medicaid-50-years-later

 

Dana,

I have a hard time seeing social security as an entitlement. I know that the funding and the payouts of social security are highly debatable. This is something that as working taxpayers, we pay into throughout our working life. According to the Social Security Administration, “Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum (SSA.gov).” As I said, I know that this is highly debatable, but I feel the label of entitlement is not accurate.

Scott

Reference:

How is Social Security financed? | Press Office | Social Security Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm

Collapse SubdiscussionDana WrightDana Wright
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03am
Manage Discussion Entry

Scott,

I agree with your opinion and don’t debate it.  Despite my opinion and yours, however, social security is seen as an “entitlement program” based on research I found.  And while I don’t entirely agree with the posting I referenced, I can appreciate the perspective.  I believe social security qualifies as an “entitlement” based on factors making one eligible to receive the benefits such as age 62 and older, as one example.  Those living with blindness are cited all over the social security website as a qualifying group of people to receive social security regardless of work history, or potentially lack thereof.  So while the majority of Americans do work to pay a social security tax that is afforded to millions of people, whether seemingly “entitled” or not depending on the context of the word, I believe that some circumstances do qualify some Americans to get the benefits of the program despite how much they have (or have not) given in to the program.  Maybe entitled is the wrong word in this circumstance; perhaps the phrase “empowered by” social security benefits would be more applicable to those who do not qualify based on the eligibility requirements listed on the government website?  Great post and thanks for your insight.

– Dana

Reference: https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-entitle-ussi.htm

Collapse SubdiscussionAmber HendersonAmber Henderson
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 10:18am
Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Scott and Dana.

Great posts.  I also agree that it is called an “entitlement”, but is it really an “entitlement” for all Americans?  If the average American works and pays into Social Security (SS) and Medicare, is it considered an “entitlement”, or should it be looked at more like a 401k, IRA, etc?  What is the difference with paying into a 401k and/or IRA and reaping the benefits vs. paying into SS and reaping the benefits? I have been paying SS since I began working at the age 15, so I believe that I should be allowed at age 67 (full age) to retire and receive SS benefits if that’s what I choose to do.  I don’t look at the lifetime worker as SS being an entitlement, but more like they are paying themselves back, via SS, the money they put into the program over 50 years of working.  According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) (2017), “Social Security helps older Americans, workers who become disabled, and families in which a spouse or parent dies” (p. 1).  However, I do believe an area where it can be referred to as an “entitlement” is when workers become disabled or a minor’s parent(s) die.  “Social Security pays more benefits to children than any other government program” (SSA, 2017, p.2). When a family has minor children, and a parent dies eliminating one full income to the family, the children are then entitled to benefits, although they personally have not paid into social security.

Reference

Social Security Administration (2017, July). Social Securoty. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from https://www.ssa.gov/retire/?gclid=CjwKCAiAr_TQBRB5EiwAC_QCq5XVVuCLrymL61UIbWLDtCqntX6CMY7IHmr4nne8FdczNB8wye-kShoCa58QAvD_BwE

Collapse SubdiscussionRory BeebeRory Beebe
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 1:01am
Manage Discussion Entry

Amber:

I enjoyed reading your response to Scott and Dana regarding Social Security is an entitlement.  I have been paying into this program since I was about 15 as well and in about 8 years, I might be able to receive my “Entitlement.”  I agree it is not an entitlement is my money which I have not received any interest on.  The government has gotten that money. You state that the child receives the benefit or the deceased.  You made me think, how long do they get it and how much?  According to SocialSecurity.gov, “Within a family, a child can receive up to half of the parent’s full retirement or disability benefits.”  They only receive these benefits to the age of 18. There are special circumstances where they can continue past age 18.  Where does all the other money go?  The government must get a benefit then, why doesn’t the whole amount go to the children?

Thanks

Rory

Social Security Administration, Benefits for Children, 07/2017. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf (Links to an external site.)

(1 like)
SHOW MORE 11

Collapse SubdiscussionBrandy BryantBrandy Bryant
Nov 30, 2017Nov 30, 2017 at 12:21pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Scott and Dana, Great post and discussion! I agree entitlement does seem like such a negative way to phrase that even though i read it in my research as well. I do also see how people can feel entitled to Social Security as they have paid in and been promised such since they began working. I of course know that by the time i reach 65 that system will most likely be long gone, but for those that are just now nearing the age 65 they feel they have worked hard and should receive what they have been promised.

(1 like)

Collapse SubdiscussionAmber HendersonAmber Henderson
Nov 30, 2017Nov 30, 2017 at 2:49pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Brandy!

I, too, have thought about what would happen when social security benefits (SSRI) run out.  I have been paying into SSI since the age of 15, and it’s frustrating to think that this money may not come back to me.   According to The Cameron Huddleston (2017), “Social Security trust funds that pay retirement and disability benefits could possibly be depleted by 2035”.  So does that mean that you and I won’t get the monies back that we paid in to SSRI, does it mean that retirees will get a 21% cut in their SSI in the future, or does that mean that workers may need to pay more (7.4% vs. 6.2%, plus equal match from the employer) into the system to reap the benefit?  I guess time will tell what happens with this fund.  What is scary to think of is SSRI is the main source of income for nearly 50% of elderly married couples and 72% of single elderly beneficiaries, according to the Social Security Administration. What will happen to current recipients if their amount is cut, or they no longer receive the cost of living adjustment?  Will they be able to survive?

 

Please see the “fun facts” put together by the SSA: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf

 

References:

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf (Links to an external site.)

Huddleston, C. (2017, July 26). Social Security is running out fast – and no one is going to like the solution. Retrieved November 30, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/social-security-is-running-out-and-no-one-will-like-the-solution-2017-7

SHOW MORE 22

Collapse SubdiscussionMarvin JenkinsMarvin Jenkins
Dec 1, 2017Dec 1, 2017 at 10:33pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Greetings Dana,

I agree with your responses and William that its difficult to see social security as an entitlement but my remarks come from a place of a lack of trust the government to provide for future generations as looking at the current state of affairs of the debt ceiling. A well known finacial consultant David Ramsey preaches we should take accountability for our own retirement and benefits just in case the government can’t uphold their end of the agreement. Also many people believe that food stamps or SNAP is a hinderance to those individuals that lack ambition to get out look for jobs but I simply see it a assistance for those people going through rough patches in life such as being laid off a job or being in a critical accident or life changing event in life there will always be people who take advantage of a system set forth to aid those in distress.

Aesha AhmadAesha Ahmad
Dec 2, 2017Dec 2, 2017 at 10:59am
Manage Discussion Entry

Hey Marvin, this was a great post. I am responding to your post because i share some of the same feelings about the government. I don’t trust them either! I do worry about benefits in the future. I worry not just for myself but for the generations that come after me. I think the debt we are in is ridiculous and the spending has gotten out of hand. I’ve attended a Dave Ramsey seminar and you are totally right, he does encourage people to “retire themselves”. I don’t think things will get better as the time goes on, this is a scary thought. I agree with you about the snap benefits but I think some people still abuse the system which makes it harder for other people to receive the benefits. Great Post!

Collapse SubdiscussionTravis HindmarshTravis Hindmarsh
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 9:11am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger,

The principles and goals of welfare systems and meant to provide a minimal standard of living. The program has achieved this for the most part. It can definitely be abused as any program can. As my chart below that I created on usgovernemntspending.com you see a major increase in healthcare and education spending. This is where cost need to the most controlled and corrected. So, when you here that people can’t afford college anymore you can see why. Healthcare has had the largest increase in cost for the government. This is hard to control with market systems vs socialist system. I do not think welfare should be a career but after looking at this chart and where money is spent, it appears welfare is not the financial burden they want to sell. I do find it interesting that the categories peak at the same time.

What is interesting to me by extending the graph chart to 2022 welfare spending has peaked according to their projected spending. But healthcare and education continue to climb. The spending on family and children has also peaked. So, this would tell me that the welfare programs have worked and there is not an increased need for them. Meaning the economy is doing good. Then there is the question of why is congress not dealing with healthcare and education.
2018 spending graph.png

Travis HindmarshTravis Hindmarsh
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 9:11am
Manage Discussion Entry

Edited by Travis Hindmarsh on Nov 28, 2017 at 9:13am

Michelle OkorieMichelle Okorie
Nov 30, 2017Nov 30, 2017 at 4:03pm
Manage Discussion Entry

There are many programs like Obama care, education to all, unemployment fee or pay and so on. all these were introduced to provide minimum and necessary facilities for all without considering their richness. there are many people who do not have sufficient income or funds to carry their lives. all they must be support by the government bodies and help them to become stronger and live their lives comfortable way.

the objective of these programs are social balance and eradication of difference between rich and poor. they provide all inputs to the poor, who are neglected decades together by the governments, who are minorities, they must give higher priority than common US people. hence these programs are delivering better results to US society. if not, problems like terrorism, naxalizm and crime rates were increased.

it is the responsibility of each government to protect rights and interests of its people, and work for their welfare.

Gordon WertzGordon Wertz
Nov 26, 2017Nov 26, 2017 at 10:59am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger,

Examine the efficacy of U.S. welfare programs. What do such programs intend to accomplish?

It is important to distinguish between federally funded programs classified as “welfare” (such as food stamps, etc.) and programs that are “entitlements” (Medicare and Social Security). The two are often lumped together. Roskin (2014) describes welfare as being “Means Tested”. To receive welfare, recipients must demonstrate that they are poor according to certain criteria (such as income and number of children). The intent of welfare is to provide the needy with food, housing, and medical care subsidies in order to meet basic human needs. The roots of modern welfare programs can be traced to Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. The New Deal was a strategy by the federal government to assist the poor and to stimulate the economy via creating jobs and pumping federal dollars into the economy (you may recall the Great Depression). It was a moderate success. Capitalizing on the success of the New Deal, and shaping his own vision of society, Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” developed programs to assist the poor, including many modern programs, such as food stamps. The question of the efficacy of such programs is debated. Welfare programs were never intended to provide a means for making a living, but rather the intent was to prevent the poorest of the poor from falling through the cracks. Too often, people go on welfare and stay on it long term. This leaves them open to criticism. With the intent of welfare to protect society’s most vulnerable (typically children and the elderly) the use of welfare, long term, by able bodied adults, is one of its strongest criticisms. So, Yes … I would say welfare works well in this country, as it protects the most vulnerable, while remaining a modest part of state and federal budgets. Some may not agree with me. Whether or not welfare programs are accomplishing their intent is open to debate, often falling along party lines.

What are some criticisms against them?

It is not so much the existence of welfare programs that is often criticized, but rather the manipulation of these programs. Individuals can “scam the system” by simply falsifying information (although it’s getting harder to do that) or by simply having more children, which ups the payout in many states. Some stay on welfare long term, while others plan on staying forever (both can be frowned upon by working society). Politicians also manipulate the welfare system by using it as leverage. Politicians are accused of promising to increase welfare in order to garner votes. These same politicians then accuse the other party of tossing the poor “under the bus”. An evolving issue is the notion that welfare benefits and a guaranteed minimal income are now a “right” instead of a part of a sponsored welfare program. This is becoming a big factor in elections. Some accuse those on welfare of “voting for a living”, that is, voting for the candidate who will give them the most in welfare benefits. Ultimately, a welfare program that protects the poor, while at the same time is well regulated in order to prevent fraud, is the fairest approach.

Thank You,

Gordon

Reference:

Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:

An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.

Collapse SubdiscussionAngela MacDonaldAngela MacDonald
Nov 26, 2017Nov 26, 2017 at 2:05pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor and class,

Welfare is a program that is funded by tax payers. The welfare system was created by President Johnson for his war of poverty. There are a multitude of ways a person can receive assistance, aka welfare. These programs were set out to help people that were suffering from poverty. Defining what poverty is can be difficult. As stated in our book, “What’s “poor” currently might have been “comfortable” in previous eras.” (Roskin 2013, pg 269) This is one of the criticisms against this program. What is the definition of a poor person? Not having enough toys? Not having enough family? Not having enough food? Who should qualify for help? Another criticism is that there is a possibility of “welfare dependence”. This means that the person who is receiving the assistance has no incentive to not receive the assistance any more. I know that there are people and families who truly need financial assistance (whether is it food stamps or cash) but it is a very hard pill to swallow when I see so many other people who do not need it abuse the system. I think that if there were stricter guidelines and limits set on how long an individual or a family can be on this benefit, it would prevent the misuse of this program.

Reference

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821

Leona WashingtonLeona Washington
Dec 3, 2017Dec 3, 2017 at 10:56am
Manage Discussion Entry

Angela,

I agree with you! Setting limits on how long an individual receives welfare assistance would greatly reduce “welfare dependence.” The people who truly need it long term would continue to receive it, but those who only need it short term would have incentive to return to the workforce or get an education. Stricter guidelines would improve the process of who gets what and when and for how long. As much as Medicaid insurance companies monitor their members private duty services, I feel they could do a much better job monitoring if the member actually qualifies for their services. I have heard of people on welfare receiving food stamps who turn around and sell them for cash. This is illegal. However, it is not monitored very well. Otherwise, those receiving help would not be so willing to break the law.

Leona

Collapse SubdiscussionAmber HendersonAmber Henderson
Nov 26, 2017Nov 26, 2017 at 2:58pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hi everyone!

Welfare was created in the 1930’s after the Great Depression, to assist families that were still struggling financially.  After being in Federal control for more than 60-years, it was reformed in 1996, which gave control of the welfare system to the States.  The programs are intended to help families that live under a certain monetary threshold with food, housing, and childcare, with the hopes that this assistance will help the family get back on their feet, ultimately getting off of the Welfare program.  According to the US Welfare System, “many Americans were unhappy with the welfare system, claiming that individuals were abusing the welfare program by not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits”.  Another area of criticism is the Food Stamp program, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as it’s known now.  In 2015, 50 million American’s received an average of $134.00 a month, per person.  When considering a family of 6, this is $804.00 per month in SNAP benefits alone.  This does not include other food benefits like the free breakfast and lunch program at publically funded schools. I know for my family of 6, $804.00 a month is a lot of money to spend on food, and an amount that we rarely hit on a monthly basis. With the money that isn’t spent on food during the month, beneficiaries have sold the excess to other people for 50% of the value, which benefits an ineligible recipient, and gives the recipient of the program extra money to spend on whatever they feel the need to (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, & Jones, 2017, p. 320). Fraud and misuse of the SNAP program remains a big problem, especially since the funds are now released to the recipient on a debit card. I can’t recall the last time I went into a grocery store and was asked for my ID when I was paying with a debit or credit card.  The lack of id’ing an individual makes the ability to use anyone’s SNAP card very easy.

 

References:

Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2017). Political Science: An Introduction (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

US Welfare System – Help for US Citizens. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2017, from http://www.welfareinfo.org/

Collapse SubdiscussionAlon SahlkeAlon Sahlke
Dec 1, 2017Dec 1, 2017 at 6:52am
Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Amber,

Great post. I didn’t realize that the SNAP benefits came on a debit card and that people received such large amounts of food assistance.  We area family of four so spending $800 dollars a month on food is very excessive for us. Typically, I spend around $300-350 but I shop for deals and sales. IN Michigan according to welfareinfo.gov the income level max to qualify for food assistance for my family of four would be $31,525. This is not a large amount of money if both adults are working. I also didn’t realize that people can sell their remaining assistance for money and let other people buy with their card. This would definitely be a huge problem that is created by the distribution of food stamps or SNAP benefits. The fraud that is happening really makes those not using assistance programs very angry. It’s one thing to need benefits and use them for the attended purpose but to abuse this program will ultimately be its decline in available services.

Thanks, A’lon

Source:

Welfare Information, (2017). http://www.welfareinfo.org/benefits/michigan-food-assistance-program-1222 (Links to an external site.)

(1 like)

Collapse SubdiscussionWilliam BrandWilliam Brand
Dec 2, 2017Dec 2, 2017 at 1:48pm
Manage Discussion Entry

A’lon,

Sadly, many do abuse the system. The federal government has a task force that helps find and stop SNAP fraud through the USDA. “USDA aggressively acts to control trafficking by using SNAP purchase data to identify suspicious transaction patterns, conducting undercover investigations, and collaborating with other investigative agencies (USDA.gov, 2017).”

This task force has over 100 analyst that look for inconsistencies or abnormalities in purchases. Unfortunately, SNAP fraud is not just limited to the recipients, but also the stores that accept these benefits. These analyst “analyze retailer data, conduct undercover investigations, and process cases – including fines and administrative disqualifications- against violating retailers (USDA.gov, 2017).” This is a very costly operation and one must wonder if doing all this work to stop fraud actually helps to save money.

Scott

What is SNAP fraud? | Food and Nutrition Service. (2017, January 20). Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud
Edited by William Brand on Dec 2, 2017 at 1:48pm

Michelle VignariMichelle Vignari
Dec 3, 2017Dec 3, 2017 at 8:35am
Manage Discussion Entry

Scott:

After reading your post, I did my own research and am amazed at the amount of fraud.  I had never heard of SNAP fraud and the limits people go to to abuse the system is frightening.   According to the UDSA (2017) as noted in their press release there is a new final rule aimed to help decrease fraud and preserve the system that is intended to help those in need, “This new rule better safeguards the taxpayer investment in this critical nutrition program by providing states with additional tools to investigate potentially fraudulent behavior” (para.7).

I have had friends in the past on WIC and I know the strict guidelines on this program and from what I saw in my area, strictly enforced at the stores who accept WIC.  These tight enforced parameter are needed to ensure compliance with the system.

Michelle

References:

USDA Releases New Report on Trafficking and Announces Additional Measures to Improve Integrity in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. (n.d.). Retrieved December 03, 2017, from https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2013/fns-001213

Collapse SubdiscussionWilliam BrandWilliam Brand
Nov 26, 2017Nov 26, 2017 at 4:39pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor and class,

Examine the efficacy of U.S. welfare programs. What do such programs intend to accomplish?

Welfare can be defined as assistance to low or no income families to assist in housing, food, medical care, child care, and many other things. “In the mid-1960s, President Lyndon Johnson launched his War on Poverty, aimed at creating a Great Society (Rodkin, 2014)”. This Great Society was to assist these less fortunate citizens. Welfare has many forms and has been modified many times over history. For instance, the Food Stamp program was initiated by President Johnson in the sixties, and was modified by President Carter in the seventies. This is still an active form of assistance today. President Clinton modified the welfare system by implementing Workfare, or welfare to work programs that required recipients to gain skills needed to acquire a job. Many thinks that the welfare program is very efficient compared to other nations with the same type of programs being used. Others think that its participants too often become welfare dependent.

What are some criticisms against them?

As mentioned, many feels that welfare recipients become welfare dependent. “Conservatives hold that the undertaking was inherently infeasible, a waste of money that often did more harm than good, locking recipients into welfare dependency and encouraging a subculture of drugs and crime (Roskin, 2014)”. Many criticize the qualifications to be deemed poor, or in need of welfare. “The government’s own data show that the actual living conditions of the more than 45 million people who are deemed “poor” by the Census Bureau differ greatly from popular conceptions of poverty. Consider these facts taken from various government reports:

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty-three percent have Internet access.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO. (Rector, 2015)”.
This data leaves many wondering if the requirements for assistance is truly right and accurate. Others argue that our current system encourages welfare dependence and discourages those receiving assistance from attempting to be self-sufficient. I think that the main debate is not necessarily the program itself, but who is entitled to the programs, how long the program applies to individuals, and to what extent does the program help.

Scott

References:

Rector, R. (2015, September 16). Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-the-united-states-and-other-nations (Links to an external site.)

Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson

Rory BeebeRory Beebe
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 8:26am
Manage Discussion Entry

Scott:

Thank you for your post.  It is very informative with the percentages that you have placed.  It would be interesting to see if these people have jobs or are working several jobs to have those items. I see some of these people in my healthcare setting.  They come in for their healthcare needs and have the best clothes on, a couple of cell phones, kids have the iPad and so forth.  Then how do they get the Medicaid card for their care?  That is where we can raise the questions is Medicaid Health insurance or welfare?

A poll was done by AJMC after the House passed the American Health Care Act(AHCA).  This act is to restructure the Medicaid program and reduce future funding and move it back to a block grant program. The survey showed, “nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58%) reported that Medicaid is at least somewhat important for their family, with 40% deeming it very important.” (Mattina, 2017).  The program under this act will allow more flexibility and response to those that need it.  Is this health care. This will lead to many difficult debates and how it will divide the political parties. 52% of Republicans survey report that Medicaid is like welfare.  Where 73% of Democrats feel it is like a health insurance program.  The AHCA must have at least 50 senators to agree on it to become a bill and allow a decrease in funding and give more back to the states. I am going to have to look further into the requirements of this program to see if it will help the poor to attain some help.

Rory

Reference:

Mattina, C. Is Medicaid Health Insurance or Welfare?  Poll finds Americans’ Views Divided, In Focus Blog, AJMC, June 2017. http://www.ajmc.com/focus-of-the-week/is-medicaid-health-insurance-or-welfare-poll-finds-americans-views-divided (Links to an external site.)

Collapse SubdiscussionJanet HodgsonJanet Hodgson
Nov 26, 2017Nov 26, 2017 at 5:24pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor and class,

As I looked into the welfare programs, I found that despite the Welfare program starting so many years ago, the percentage of American poverty rates is still close what it was when it began. According to Washington Post author David Matthews, he reported that “our poverty programs are keeping roughly the same amount of people (1-3 percent of the population) out of poverty each year. In 2009, that number jumped to 2.9 percent.” However, the amount of spending on low-income only programs, welfare, and social security continues to rise and rise each year. The percentage of Americans being saved from poverty each year isn’t changing, which means that while it helps in some aspects of welfare, putting more and more money into the system isn’t showing improvements, only a small consistency.

My main criticism is that welfare is often toted as a savior of people from poverty, but the poverty rate is currently 13.5 percent, and only 3 percent is saved from poverty because of welfare. Meaning, as much money is put into these programs, welfare alone does not solve the issue of poverty.

Matthews, D. (2012, July 11). Poverty in the 50 years since ‘The Other America,’ in five charts. Retrieved November 26, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/?utm_term=.d4a056c7f681

Gordon WertzGordon Wertz
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 5:13pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Janet,

Thank you for your thought provoking and interesting post. I like the fact that you mention that, despite years of welfare support, many never break the cycle of poverty. Unfortunately, assisting those in need has become politicized. As part of partisan rhetoric, one party often accuses the other party of not doing enough for the poor. Sadly, the poor are often used as pawns for political gain. Politicians shrewdly fund programs just enough to sustain those in need, but not enough to allow them to break free from government assistance. In this way, they keep the needy voting for the candidate who promises to give them the most in benefits. Some of the poorest voting districts in the nation have voted for one party (over the other) for decades, yet, despite promises of increased assistance by the candidates, those districts remain poor. Politicians have a vested interest in keeping people just poor enough to guarantee a vote in their favor. I’m not trying to foist a conspiracy theory here, but businesses also take advantage of those with welfare benefits. As an example, I cite Section 8 housing (where the government pays rent directly to the landlord). There are standards that this housing is supposed to meet. But money talks. And a few donations to the right person buys a “pass” on government inspection for these slumlords. Some would argue that these negative aspects are just part of the process, as those in need still receive help, albeit in a dysfunctional way. This highlights where opinion on welfare splits. There are those who believe that welfare programs should be judged by their effectiveness (outcomes – the numbers lifted out of poverty and eventually getting off of assistance) or as Pattanaik & Xu (2007) state, much of normative economics has been guided by welfarism, i.e., the ethical principle that welfare evaluation should be based exclusively on their effects on the utilities of the individuals concerned. Then, there are those who believe that assistance is a right, as part of society’s responsibility to the poor, regardless of its ability to diminish poverty. What you believe in respect to welfare often defines how you vote. Politicians are counting on that.

Thank You,

Gordon

Reference:

Pattanaik, P, & Xu, Y. (2007). Conceptions of individual rights and

freedom in welfare economics: A re-examination. Andrew Young

School of Policy Studies: Research Paper Series – Department of

Economics – Georgia State University. Retrieved from

http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2007/index.htm (Links to an external site.)

Collapse SubdiscussionAngela MacDonaldAngela MacDonald
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 10:34pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Janet, you make an excellent point. As of 2015, there are 43.1 millions Americans “suffering” from poverty. I say “suffering” because I believe that in most cases now, being “poor” is too easy. There is no incentive or push to get out of poverty when there are so many benefits that are easily attainable. For example, If I did not want to work any more, I could just quit my job. I know that because I have a family that it would be easy for me to get assistance in many forms. Once I am getting my assistance, what is motivating me to get off? Nothing. That is why these numbers that you quoted are not changing. They will not change unless the guidelines for receiving benefits changes.

Travis HindmarshTravis Hindmarsh
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 10:06am
Manage Discussion Entry

Angela and Janet,

In 2016 poverty decreased to 40.6 million a 0.8% decrease from 2015. The second year in a row, showing some improvement in economy. 65 and older was the only group to show an increase in poverty level in 2016. 18-64 declined from 12.4 to 11.6%, There will always be a percentage of poverty and people on welfare. Since there is a percentage that choose to live this way. The increasing drug problem across the country and in the poorest areas makes it easy to stay on the system. Even though we focus on this group it is a small percentage of the country. As the country continues to come out of the recession we need to keep seeing a decrease in unemployment  and an increase of jobs for people to do. So many industries move out of the country due to cost. A lot of hard working people have lost production jobs over the past few decades.

Reference: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259.html

Lucia ReyesLucia Reyes
Dec 3, 2017Dec 3, 2017 at 8:20pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hey Janet,

Thanks for that great and informative post. I do agree with you in that welfare programs cannot act as solutions to poverty. Even though much money is pumped into the programs, the percentage level of poverty solved still remains the same. It is high time people stop over depending on the programs and work on themselves. Thanks

Collapse SubdiscussionRory BeebeRory Beebe
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 9:16am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger and Classmates:

The programs that we have in place in the United States all started in the Great Depression of 1930.  The government responded to the needs of families and individuals by creating programs to assist them out of poverty.   There are many different programs that are available for these families or individuals.  These programs of health care, food stamps, child care assistance, housing assistance, or unemployment.  These programs have stayed in the federal government for over sixty-one years until President Bill Clinton in 1996 made it his intention to reform these programs.  The Republican Congress passed this reform and gave control of the welfare system back to the states.  The federal government still assist with these programs for each state through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF) This is a grant that is given to each state to run their programs.  “The TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 to 55 required by two parent families.” (WelfareInfo, 2017)

In reading the requirements of the TANF this program trying to help these families out but also attempting to get them back into the workforce.  In the State of Maine, these reforms are working. Statistics from an article in Forbes (2016) shows that by January 2015, food stamps had dropped to only 4,500 people that needed them and this continues to decline.  These reforms have lead people out of poverty as their average incomes rose an average of 114%.  These are great strides to help the welfare of our communities.

There are many criticisms that each of these programs can have and they are trying to work them out and improve the program so that no fraud can happen.  Even though there are many that will attempt to get the most out of programs.  In my job, I have experienced some of these problems.  People moving to my state and using our Medicaid system and still being a resident of another state and receiving benefits from that state. This person came right out and stated it to a couple of my fellow coworkers how much she made off the programs.  This is not right, especially for those that are working hard and becoming educated to get jobs and succeed in the world.

Thanks

Rory

References:

Roskin, M.G., Cord, R.L., James A Medeiros, Jones, W.S. Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. 2014.

Welfare Info, 2017. http://www.welfareinfo.org/ (Links to an external site.)

Archambault, J. New Report proves Maine’s Welfare Reforms are Working, Forbes,  2016, May, 19. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/05/19/new-report-proves-maines-welfare-reforms-are-working/#4942ce893f6a

Damaris DelToroDamaris DelToro
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 12:07pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Rory

I find your posted information on TANF very good. I do not agree with the 2 year granting. I feel 2 years is longer than one should have to reform themselves. I would think 1 year would be sufficient. As you mentioned with the abuse of system from the people that are moving into your state. In my state I have heard and know of some individuals that have section 8 and rent out those apartments to another for example 3 times the rent. She mentioned to another patient in one of my rooms “I have a 2 bedroom apartment that section 8 pays for. I only have to give them $300 dollars a month but I rented it for $950”. I was livid in listening to that conversation! Imagining she may not be the only one in our state doing this, I ask when will the Government do something to create a better eligibility screening tool. What is sad is that many out there are still in a shelter for the homeless with little children and truly need these apartments. This is heartbreaking to say the least. I guess when former President Clinton gave the reform back to the states all hell broke loose. Clintons reform gave state authorities to use federal money to help parents train and find work, but many states used the money for other purposes. (The Washington Post). In 1996, Clinton signed a major welfare reform to “end welfare as we know it”.Many states developed the workfare program that required the recipients to either take jobs or train for one. Roskin (2014 Ch. 16 Pg. 274).  It is not working! It needs revamping or total elimination.

Damaris

Reference

(1 like)

Travis HindmarshTravis Hindmarsh
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 11:25am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger,

The welfare system in the United States is considered be a low expenditure compared to other advanced industrialized democracies (Roskin,2014). This is shown since the welfare expenditures are divided up much differently than other states welfare systems. I you take into count the large amount of tax breaks given like Earned Income Credit, Unemployment, Health Care spending, Food Stamps and public housing. This makes the U.S. a welfare state, with the third highest spending per capita the world (Rector, 2015). The U.S. system is so broken up into public and private systems it makes it more difficult to track the spending. Unlike Europe that is all government and makes their welfare system seem much higher than the U.S. When you combine government and non-government spending 1/3 of the GDP is absorbed into social welfare.

Since the U.S. is wealthier than most other nations this makes our per capita spending on social welfare significantly higher than other countries. A large piece of the pie goes to healthcare and education spending. So, until they can figure out to get these expenditures down without effecting results the cost will remain high. The U.S has a poverty rate consistent with other advanced nations when comparing to a uniformed standard (Rector, 2015). Per (Rector, 2015) The U.S. should seek to reduce poverty by promoting self-sufficiency. The government has tried to fund retraining programs to get people off welfare, but this only increase welfare spending as you were now paying for training and the other welfare expenses (Roskin, 2014). The problem with trying to reduce welfare spending is the increase demand on the entitlement programs they are growing at a large rate with the retiring baby boomers. Accompanied by the strength of the economy. There has to strong employment to keep people off the welfare system.

References:

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., James A. Medeiros, Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269724821/ (Links to an external site.)

Rector, Robert (9/2015) Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and other Nations http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/poverty-and-the-social-welfare-state-the-united-

Collapse SubdiscussionAlon SahlkeAlon Sahlke
Nov 27, 2017Nov 27, 2017 at 8:42pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hello professor and class,

The Welfare system is one of the most controversial programs in the US. This program was started by President Johnson during his war on poverty (Roskin, p. 272). The program was designed to help those determined to be at the poverty level with much need items like food and healthcare. Welfare is a federally funded program the has been criticized by many for allowing people to stay on assistance in lieu of obtaining employment, and having more children to increase aid(welfareinfo.org). The goal of Welfare was to help those in times of need not to support families for life.

Thanks, A’lon

Source:

Roskin, M.G., Cord, R.L., James A Medeiros, Jones, W.S. Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. 2014.

http://www.welfareinfo.org/

Lucia ReyesLucia Reyes
Dec 3, 2017Dec 3, 2017 at 8:23pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hey Alon,

Great post! The main reason of the program was to assist those on the poverty level and in future reduce the level of poverty in the country. However, today the level of poverty is still the same and a lot of people over depend on the program. The program was designed to assist in poverty not as a solution to poverty.

Sharon GreinerSharon Greiner
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 12:03am
Manage Discussion Entry

There are many welfare programs in place currently in the United States including, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, school lunch, Head Start, and the WIC program (Mitchell, 2014) These programs were put in place to supplement those families and Individuals that fall beneath the poverty income line. One issue, according to some conservatives is that supplementing with programs was causing more harm by causing welfare dependency and encouraging and increase in drug use and crime (Roskin, 2013 pg 272). Another issue was with Hospitals and Physicians not economizing with Medicaid and Medicare which has led to and over usage of funds (Roskins, 2013 pg. 273).

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/pressroom/articles/2014/05/17/is-welfare-broken/ (Links to an external site.) Mitchell, 2014

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., James A. Medeiros, Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269724821/ (Links to an external site.)

Collapse SubdiscussionAngelica LomeliAngelica Lomeli
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 12:29am
Manage Discussion Entry

Welfare first came about in 1960’s under President Johnson’s vision of a Great Society. Welfare encompasses help for the poor in the form of Medicaid, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). These programs intended to raise low-income families/people out of poverty. Criticisms include the creation of subcultures of crime and drugs, becoming welfare dependent, and doing more harm than good (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros, and Jones, 2014).

If the intent is to raise families/people out of poverty, there are more needs to be considered then just the amount the official poverty rate includes. “2010, the US government decided to introduce yet another measure of poverty: t (Links to an external site.)he supplemental poverty rate (Links to an external site.), which takes into consideration consumer spending on necessities like food, shelter and utilities as well as any assistance that they might receive”. According to a study from the Pew Charitable Trusts, these programs do help a lot of people (Welfare Programs Shown to Reduce Poverty in America, 2014). Cuts in welfare spending save little and inflict hardship on society’s most vulnerable members, especially children” (Roskin et al., 2014, p. 272). I think we should support our vulnerable population, but more screening is needed to decrease fraud.

As far as the criticism from the Conservative parties that it creates a subculture of crime and drug’s I must disagree. Drugs and crime are not limited to people on welfare, those problems cross all economic, social, and gender lines. “Psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more prevalent than illicit drug dependence among welfare recipients. States should screen, assess, and refer to treatment those welfare applicants and recipients who have a broad range of mental health and substance abuse problems that hinder the transition from welfare to work” (Pollack, 2017). I believe the system has created some welfare dependency and should have welfare to work programs but we should look at individual cases to find out why they are on welfare and not just throw everyone into the same pile. I know of a few families that stay unmarried because they can get welfare money by classifying themselves as a single parent with dependents. They are using the system as it is set up.

Welfare works for many that are temporarily out of work, have permanent injuries or are handicapped and unable to help themselves. Better screening of who is getting these benefits should be done to decrease fraud and misuse.

Angelica

Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science: An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.

Pollack, H. (n.d.) Substance Abuse Trends Among Welfare Recipients. Substance Abuse Policy Research Program. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm (Links to an external site.)

Welfare Programs Shown to Reduce Poverty in America. The Guardian. Retrieved November 27, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america (Links to an external site.)
Edited by Angelica Lomeli on Nov 28, 2017 at 12:58am

Collapse SubdiscussionJOEL TERWILLIGERJOEL TERWILLIGER
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 9:34am
Manage Discussion Entry

Great start to this thread everybody!

An oft-repeated political statement is that entitlement programs need to be reformed in order to “balance the budget” or curtail federal spending. So when it is all said and done, what is the importance in balancing the U.S. budget? What downfalls exist when we do not?

Leigh BennettLeigh Bennett
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 11:18am
Manage Discussion Entry

The importance is balancing the U.S. budget seems like a pretty obvious one to me. From what I know about budgeting in my personal life, it is an important skill to have and to carry with you throughout life as finances change or things might happen in life that cause money to have to be distributed in different ways than previously before. But on a larger scale like our government’s budget, I realize that there is a lot more that goes into this than a mortgage and groceries.

The important in balancing a budget in regards to this situation is that a set budget is similar to a road map or a plan. And I would say that most of us can agree that functioning with a plan is a lot easier than making it up as you go along. A source I found which talked about the downfalls of a failing budget said, ‘Our nation having a budget is the only way to guarantee that the public debt will not outgrow the economy, which would crowd out private investment, raise interest rates and increase inflation’ (Website). The long-term consequences of not having a workable budget are there and we are seeing said consequences in our economy today.

‘Entitlement’ programs (I do not believe that SS should be labeled an ‘entitlement’ program by the connotation of that word) do need to be reformed and looked at again because they are causing the nation a great deal of hurt financially (ex. food stamps). As other people have stated, if it is easy to get access to such ‘free’ benefits, what is the incentive to get out of poverty for these people when this allows for them to not work or be truly functional in society? The bottom line is that the country does not have the resources to continue supplying mass amounts of people with government assistance and this won’t be able to be maintained forever. That is why a balanced budget is key to keeping this country afloat.

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-priority/a-balanced-budget-should-be-the-top-policy-priority

(1 like)

Gordon WertzGordon Wertz
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 2:10pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger,

What is the importance in balancing the U.S. budget?

I would argue that a balanced budget is actually a bad thing. Running a small deficit, whether as an individual or as a government, is actually the most efficient way to manage a financial strategy. Money must be viewed as a tool. And we can use that tool to create leverage. We borrow money to buy a house (at a moderate interest rate – hopefully) and over time the value of the house grows, allowing it to be a true investment (a good return on the money spent). Governments too need to borrow money in order to fund programs. The problem with government borrowing is that it can quickly get out of control. Large deficits hurt the economy, as the interest payments on this borrowed money eats up more and more of future budgets, requiring the borrowing of even more money in order to fund both interest payments and continuing government programs. Trimming the budget to cut the deficit has its dangers too. Trim too much too fast and the economy stops growing, leading to recession and unemployment. We should be aiming for a “healthy balance” in the federal budget. Some borrowing, some debt, but keeping it within economic reason. This is more difficult than it sounds. Federal programs are expensive, but voters demand them. Politicians walk the fine line between balancing the budget and getting voted out of office.

What downfalls exist when we do not?

Negative consequences can arise when we run a deficit that is too large. I mentioned that interest payments on deficits can add to future debt, driving the deficit up even more. In the U.S. foreign investors have purchased much of our debt. However, if the deficit is too big, bond yields rise and investors purchase fewer bonds. Sometimes, governments will print money in order to purchase some of the debt. The printing of this additional money can cause inflation, driving consumer prices up. Deficits rise and fall based on our economy. We need to learn how to manage deficits for maximal gain. As Stockman (2001) points out, most economic models do not suggest an optimal fiscal policy in which the government’s budget is balanced each period. Conventional wisdom suggests that the government run surpluses and deficits to smooth taxes. Ultimately, deficits mean we are borrowing from ourselves. And in the end we have to pay ourselves back.

Thank You,

Gordon

Reference:

Stockman, R. (2001). Balanced-budget rules: Welfare loss and optimal

Policies. Review of Economic Dynamics, 4(2). Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1006/redy.2000.0122 (Links to an external site.)

Janet HodgsonJanet Hodgson
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 11:04am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor,

The importance of balancing our budget mainly comes in making sure that we can stave off our massive debt while still providing a solid economy of growth and being able to borrow money at the same time. We can look at Greece for an example of what happens when a budget is not balanced, and Greece swept a lot of its financial issues under the rug and didn’t tell people how much they were in debt until after the Wall Street bubble burst in 2008. As stated by the New York Times article “Explaining Greece’s Debt Crisis”, the author explains “Greece announced in October 2009 that it had been understating its deficit figures for years, raising alarms about the soundness of Greek finances. Suddenly, Greece was shut out from borrowing in the financial markets. By the spring of 2010, it was veering toward bankruptcy, which threatened to set off a new financial crisis.”

They couldn’t borrow any more money from countries because the countries knew Greece was unreliable to pay them back, but they also didn’t have their own industries or businesses established to turn many profits. The US stands to face a similar issue if the budget was left to continue overspending and raising its debts without the funds to pay back its debtors.

 

Times, T. N. (2016, June 17). Explaining Greece’s Debt Crisis. Retrieved November 29, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html

Damaris DelToroDamaris DelToro
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 7:03pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger

It has been said that if we hold the growth of Government spending each year by approximately 2%-3% that the federal budget stands a chance of balancing within 6 years.

If we do not balance the budget, as the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders would demand more interest payments.

Reference

US Debt and How It Affects the Economy-The Balance https://www.thebalance (Links to an external site.).com

(1 like)

Collapse SubdiscussionErika Denise ApitErika Denise Apit
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 9:40pm
Manage Discussion Entry

In my own opinion, regardless if you’re an individual, a business or a government, balancing of budgets is quite essential and important. Balancing the U.S budget will allow the different departments of the government to have a guide and be able to prioritize on what they should spend on and what they should cut. Having a budget plan is also beneficial since it allows for easier tracking of where government funds and money go to and it allows the government to better keep our country’s finances on track. Having a designated budget for our country will also help decrease national debt in the sense that each department would be limited to only spending what is designated and not more than what our country’s expected income is.

Rory BeebeRory Beebe
Nov 30, 2017Nov 30, 2017 at 10:04am
Manage Discussion Entry

Erika and classmates:

I also agree budgets should be balanced.  It is the best way to run your home, city, county, state and the federal government.  It is difficult to keep it balanced because issue come up and we must take the money and spend it on something that we have not planned for.  This is something that happens in all forms of life.  How many times do we each say that I really like something and know that we do not have the finances for it and buy it! Then we short our self in something that we need.

In looking the U.S. budget, the Treasury Department “divides all federal speeding into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on the debt.” It is stated that the first two are more than ninety percent of all federal spending and pay all government services and programs. This is from the budget year 2015.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ (Links to an external site.)  (I could not place the piecharts I wanted to in this post, please go to this site, Sorry)

You can see through these pie charts the amounts of FY 2015 budget and where the money went.  In the mandatory spending makes up 2/3 of the budget.  Medicare makes up 23% of the mandatory spending and 15% of the total budget.  To me, this is some very high numbers for our budget to withhold.  The budget that year was $3.8 trillion dollars.  This made up about 21% of the U.S. economy.   Which for use is about $12,000 for every woman, man, and child in the United States of America.

Trying to balance a budget like this takes a lot of work and patience. President Trump is trying to make sure our budget is balanced and that all projects go forward in the United States, but working through Congress and the Senate is a big venture.

Rory

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go, Federal Budget 101, National Priorities Project,

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ (Links to an external site.)

Michelle OkorieMichelle Okorie
Nov 30, 2017Nov 30, 2017 at 3:57pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Yes , it is extremely important to balance the budget without which the economy becomes vulnerable and prone to downfalls. Also since both republicans and democrats have separate views it gets even more to fix on a stable budget policy.Deficit reduction is necessary to eradicate the burden on economy along with fall in unemployment rate .If not , the economy becomes weak and prone external volatility following which even the government may not be able to support it’s people either.

Marissa HeathMarissa Heath
Dec 1, 2017Dec 1, 2017 at 11:43am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor,

There are many different aspects that effect balancing the national budget. The nations budget is divided into three groups in which the national spending is separated into. There are the mandatory and discretionary spending groups which account for 90% of the nations spending, and debt interest which is caused by over spending from years pasts. (website) This interest debt is just the reason as to why it is so important to ensure a balanced budget. If within the united states to government ensured that the countries money went toward areas that actually needs money, and limited to amount of unnecessary spending, then the debt wouldn’t be so high. When the debt goes down, so does the interest that they government must have to pay in the years to follow. With this increase in amount of interest that much be paid, it opens up extra spending that can be used towards other areas within the governments financial spending budgets, such as areas that may require more spending.

Resource:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Marvin JenkinsMarvin Jenkins
Dec 1, 2017Dec 1, 2017 at 10:41pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Greetings Professor,

I think that government budget and funding should be triaged like medical events so that most vulnerable and urgent needs gets taken care of first. Its seems that when budgeting politics always plays a factor first such as the governmental interest groups. Also I think thats why it imperative to have review to quarterly coven to see what is working or not to make sure persons are being held accountable for the budget and decisions being made on a daily basis. The biggest downfall is a loss of funds that could have been better used in another area in the budget thats more urgent.

Damaris DelToroDamaris DelToro
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 11:45am
Manage Discussion Entry

Angelica

I agree with you on your opinion of what the Conservatives believe. The Welfare system may be a part of the individuals subculture but it was not solely created by their use of drugs or increase in crime. Our Government creates and decide on “Monstrous” decisions which become a problem for our country. When their decisions fail they want to name blame. The fraudulent activities have been around for years and yet the Government hasn’t come up with a resolution that is fair and equitable. I do know that I agree in that welfare assistance should definitely be for those that are disabled, permanently handicapped or temporarily out of work. Those out of work should be given jobs that fit their abilities and should not be left on the system. There should be clauses that should order them to find a job within a reasonable time frame and if not they will lose the benefits if they do not. It should be similar to the disciplinary actions an employee is given when they are low performing or are caught in actions that could have gotten them fired yet they are given an opportunity within a reasonable time frame to improve or be terminated.

Damaris

(1 like)

Damaris DelToroDamaris DelToro
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 11:33am
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor Terwilliger and Classmates

Are we talking about Welfare or Entitlement? The two categories overlap, but the essence of a welfare program is that it is “means tested”: recipients must demonstrate that are poor according to certain criteria such as how much income and how many children they have.  Are people poor because they cannot find work or because they do not want to work? If poverty is a character defect, as most conservatives maintain, than little can be done. Roskin (2014 Ch. 16 Pg.270).

Fraudulent Behavior: There was much abuse of system when paper food stamps became available.There were many that received a large amount of money, averaging $134 dollars per person per household. In 1991 they caught a realtor had sold a house to an undercover federal agent for $30,000 cash food stamp money. (Lakeland Ledger-July 7,1991). With the introduction of the EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card in the late 1980s, these cards are how SNAP participants receive their food money today and thereby decreases fraud potential. They are tied directly to the Government identification records and require a pin to authorize payment without the exchange of paper. Did this improve fraudulent activity? NO. It is said that by the Inspector General for the Department of Agriculture “There is so much fraud we don’t catch that it’s mind boggling”. We can report fraud on hotlines made available to the public in many states. Welfare Fraud is widespread. In 2016, The Office of Investigations for the Social Security Administration recovered 52.6 million, fines to 4.5 million, restitution 70 million, settlements/judgments 1.7 million. Estimated savings of $355.7 million. (Office of The Inspector General). The costs of policing and prosecuting is high and unmeasured. I believe that no matter how much the cost we can get theses criminals off the system and allow for those that are the truly needy and do not commit fraud to reap the assistance without the fear of repercussions.

Efficacy of US welfare programs & What do such programs accomplish: What the system does well is it alleviates poverty and does not destroy the incentives to kill off poverty through work rather than redistribution. The welfare system has reduced the child poverty margins from 20% before welfare to approximately 3% after welfare.  Reform in 1996, former President Clinton signed a major welfare reform to “end welfare as we know it”. The 1996 Reform came when the economy was excellent,it replaced entitlement-type welfare payments with block grants to the states to spend fighting poverty as they saw it. Recipients had five years to get off welfare. They developed Workfare programs which required training & money. Many lost around 40 cents to the dollar in ancillary benefits, food stamps, day care, and Medicaid.  The total number of welfare recipient’s also dropped. The real test of welfare reform will come in how it holds up during recession. Roskin (2014 Ch.16 Pg.274).  This may come hard on many as the years bring us more changes with each new President. In my opinion, I feel everyone on welfare should be made to show annual proof of necessity and be randomly drug tested. I have witnessed the abuse of system in the many states I have lived in. When I hear a person talking to another about how they plan to go clubbing and buy a nice outfit, do their nails “Mani-Pedi” when their welfare moneys come due and I see they drive a nice car and have tons of gold jewelry, it bothers me. I am all for the truly needy individual receiving aid, however, there has got to be a way of weeding the bad apples off.

Criticisms: Fiscal Year 2016 total spent on welfare was approximately $1,106, $668 Billion on Medicaid and $ 452 Billion in other welfare, each year. (US Government Spending ).

1. The Liberals: criticize the welfare state because they believe these programs do not reduce poverty, improve education, improve health and reduce the individuals ability to manage their lives. (The Making of Modern Liberalism Pg. 26).

2. The Conservatives: criticize the system and say they contribute to a generation of dependents that prefer to remain on assistance and make no effort to find employment. ( American Conservative’s Crisis of Ideas).

3. The Socialist: criticize that the system often goes alongside the structural issues of Capitalism and the inability for social welfare measures to solve fundamental economics. (The Debate Among Socialists pg. 60-61).

 

References

Ryan, Alan., The Making of Modern Liberalism (2012 Princeton and Oxford Presses)

Roskin, M.G., Cord, R.L., Medeiros, J.A., & Jones, W.S., Political Science: An Introduction. 2014 13th Edition

Schweickart, David., Democratic Socialism. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. (2006): https://orion.it.luc.edu/-dschwei/demsoc.htm (Links to an external site.)

US Welfare Spending History with Charts: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com (Links to an external site.)

Collapse SubdiscussionRobyn HookerRobyn Hooker
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 11:50am
Manage Discussion Entry

Hello,

Welfare programs began in the 1930’s in response to the Great Depression.  The purpose of the programs are to help the impoverished to maintain a minimum standard of living or well-being.  Some of the major welfare programs are, child health insurance, medicaid, unemployment, housing assistance, food stamps, and temporary assistance for needy families.  There are many other programs, but must fall under one of the six major categories.

Welfare programs have many critics.  Some argue that welfare encourages laziness.  One of the biggest critics of welfare is Charles Murray.  In his book Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, Murray  states that welfare encourages bad behavior.  He states that is a person has a guaranteed check or income from the government, he has no incentive to look for a job.  He also states that welfare programs encourage illiteracy, illegitimacy, and unemployment.  He even hinted at drug addiction.  His book is used by Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and other conservatives in arguments over social and welfare reform.

Murray, Charles A. (1984). Losing Ground:  American social policy, 1950-1980.  New York: Basic Books

Robyn

Irene O’GaraIrene O’Gara
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 3:24pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Robyn,

I agree to an extent with the book by Charles Murray. Although I believe some people definitely take advantage of the system, there are some out there who truly are in need. There are some who will use it only when needed in order to help them get back on their feet, and there are others who will abuse it. I have heard talk before of having recipients do a drug screening while on welfare. I do not think that is a horrible idea as it happens in the workplace often. This may or may not help the amount of people who abuse the system, but I am not sure what the laws around this can be.

Alon SahlkeAlon Sahlke
Dec 2, 2017Dec 2, 2017 at 1:48pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Robyn and class,

I enjoyed your post and did some research on the book you mentioned by Murray. I agree that the system needs change due to the abuse and fraudulent behavior many on Welfare have. The guidelines for the length on time one can receive benefits should be clear. I’ve known of women who have been on welfare and had additional children, remained unmarried to the children’s’ father just to receive more benefits. This type of behavior should not be acceptable. This person I’m referring to also worked but made minimum wage, so the reality was she was unable to support her current family of five prior to having additional children. This discussion makes me think that without reform our system of supporting the poor could be in major trouble. Why can’t people use it for the intended purpose, regain some steam and rejoin life like the rest of us?

Thanks, A’lon

Erika Denise ApitErika Denise Apit
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41pm
Manage Discussion Entry

U.S welfare programs exist in order to aid and address the needs of the American population. Especially those who are at or below the poverty line. These programs include cash assistance, food stamps, medical provisions, housing subsidies and other services like work trainings. Each program varies in their eligibility requirement. These welfare systems have been around for a long time however, the debate and whether or not it is effective in fighting of poverty is still a controversy. As our book states, conservatives want to limit antipoverty programs while liberals try to continually expand them (Roskin,et. al, 2014, p 270). Conservatives have argued that these welfare programs “offer incentives that encourage unemployment, illegitimacy and drug use” (Roskin,et. al, 2014, p 270). In other words, some people think that the us welfare programs do the opposite of what it was intended to do because it encourages people to just not work and continue being at the poverty line since they receive help from the government for free.  However, looking at how the authors of the book view this, New York which has extensive welfare programs and Mississippi with its weak and unfunded programs both have high levels of poverty (Roskin,et. al, 2014, p 270). Job training and retraining have been a big part of our country’s welfare system however, a lot of people who have completed these trainings still do not find jobs which defeats the purpose of these programs. Aside from this, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan issued a 204-page critique of the federal anti-poverty programs that our country has in which he concluded the need to reform. As Paul Ryan stated, “For years now, Washington has spent billions of dollars on dozens of programs to fight poverty, but we have barely moved the needle’ as he stated, the war on poverty has become a stalemate at best and has not led as to positive outcomes (Wasson, 2014). From all of the readings and research I have done for this particular post, I can say that yes, the United states welfare systems has its flaws and it does need to be revised in order for the people not to abuse it. However, for the many years that it has been around, I think that it has done a good job at serving its purpose of giving aid to Americans in need.

Reference:

Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:

An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.

Wasson, E. (2014, March 03). Ryan: Welfare Programs Making Poverty Worse . Retrieved November 28, 2017, from http://thehill.com/policy/finance/199691-ryan-blasts-welfare-programs-in-new-report

Collapse SubdiscussionIrene O’GaraIrene O’Gara
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 3:11pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hello Class,

Welfare in the U.S. is intended to help families in need. Food stamps started in 1961 as a trial under Kennedy. In 1964 it was implemented nationwide under Johnson. It is now named SNAP benefits and has a very strict criteria that families must follow. The statistics show that in 2012, about 48 million Americans received SNAP benefits. These programs are intended to help get families out of poverty. In 1996 President Clinton started the welfare-to-work program. It was intended to get recipients training in order to get a job and get off of welfare within five years. Some recipients who took jobs were still quite poor because for every dollar they earned, they lost around 40 cents in “ancillary benefits,” which include food stamps, child day care, and Medicaid. (Roskin, 2014, p. 273). The Republicans then added the EITC credit to taxes that working families can claim with dependents. The EITC credit was put in place to encourage those on welfare to get employment as they believed this will help them out of poverty.

Some people argue that if we eliminated “welfare” spending we could cut taxes, but “welfare” spending is not the problem; entitlements are. (Roskin, 2014, p. 272). I am not sure what the best thing to bring people out of poverty would be. I thought the welfare-to-work program was a great idea, but it seems that it was not beneficial. I think with more education there may be a chance that poverty may not be as high in the future.

Reference: Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.

Collapse SubdiscussionAngelica LomeliAngelica Lomeli
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 10:13pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Irene, part of the philosophy of Karl Marx was “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” (Philosophy, 2017). I take that as each person has unique and maybe limited abilities and should be put to work accordingly. I think the welfare-to-work programs is a great idea. Besides finding jobs according to a person’s ability, we need to ensure the wages are sufficient to keep them from returning to welfare. The jobs and a living wage need to be available for these programs to be successful. The Salvation Army does a great job providing jobs to those in need and with limited abilities. Maybe the government should partner up with organizations for welfare-to-work programs AND provide a living wage.

Angelica

What is Marxism. (n.d.). All About Philosophy. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from  https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm (Links to an external site.)

William BrandWilliam Brand
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 8:35pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Angelica,

I agree that those that are participants in welfare to work programs should make a living wage. I think that this is a wonderful program. “Additional welfare reform legislation in 1997 authorized the Department of Labor to provide Welfare-to-Work grants to help the hardest-to-employ, long-term welfare recipients get education, training, work experience, and private-sector jobs.  These grants to States and communities are intended to provide welfare recipients with training, transitional employment, job placement services, and support services (Corsetti, G).”  However, I have seen instances where these participants received very high paying government jobs. I know of two particular participants that have salaries that are comparable to mine, with no formal education. This makes it understandable why some would take advantage of this program. It does work, and it can greatly benefit those who use it. While all may not be as fortunate as the examples that I used, they at least have a starting point. I was a single father raising two children on my own when my company moved overseas. I was very fortunate to be able to attend school and be able to better myself, without welfare. While I know everyone’s circumstances are different, this at least gives them a chance.

Scott

Corsetti, G., Flemming, J., Honkapohja, S., Leibfritz, W., & Saintpaul, G. Retrieved from https://doleta.gov/programs/factsht/pdf/welfaretowork.pdf

Angela MacDonaldAngela MacDonald
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 7:39pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Irene, I feel the same way. I am not sure what the best way to end poverty is. I do know that education would help. Educating people (whether it be a trade school or formal college or anywhere in between) would equip the population with the tools they needed to obtain the lifestyle they wanted on their own earnings. Instead, people do not want to or can’t learn a trade skill or get an education that would provide them with a career, therefore preventing them from getting off of benefits. I do believe that if education were cheaper, then poverty levels would not be so high.

Michelle SmithMichelle Smith
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 3:57pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Welfare programs are government subsidies to the poor (Amadeo 2017). Usually this is provided to families who fall below the poverty income level. There are six major welfare programs provided by our government: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSI, EITC, Housing assistance, and many others. These programs are intended to help those in need with health care, food, housing assistance, and many other things.

Each program offers many positive things for families in need, but it seems that the welfare system does not try to buffer and foster a point for individuals to improve their status without losing all benefits. This discourages people receiving welfare to go back to work. The programs are all very complex and hard to navigate and each has its own threshold of income earnings where the benefit is lost totally, and the even though the party may have found a job. The earnings from said job are still less than what the recipient was getting from the welfare program thereby discouraging them from getting jobs. Not all the welfare programs are like this. SNAP is a program that works on an index and does not discourage working while receiving benefits, however not all the welfare programs are like this.

Our welfare system often discourages marriage as well. If a single mother wanted to marry a spouse who brings home and annual income of 20,000 it would mean she would lose her welfare benefits. Rather than marry they will simply live together and never claim that income.

Finally, would be the conditions required for the benefits. Many the welfare programs have no requirements attached to them such as a time frame to obtain a job or job training, monitoring grades and school attendance, drug and alcohol testing. Many argue that not having conditions or time frames in the Welfare system does not encourage those to improve their lives to leave it. The system is complex and for anything to be impactful it would need to be across the whole system and not in just one or two of the programs.

Reference:

Welfare Issues. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-issues.html

Amadeo, K. 6 Major Welfare Programs: Myths and Facts. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759

Collapse SubdiscussionAesha AhmadAesha Ahmad
Nov 28, 2017Nov 28, 2017 at 8:22pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Professor and class, Welfare programs are government funded programs. These programs are set in place to help low income families. They are to help families get back to work and be able to support their families independently. According to Roskins, pg. 272, welfare includes, the food stamps (Supplemental Nutritious Assistance Program), Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Insurance. Many people criticize the welfare program because they feel the system is enabling the people who receive them. I often hear about people being on welfare for years. Most of the people I have known to be on welfare are single mothers. Many of these women have more than three children. Many people don’t like the welfare program because they feel the program gives assistance to people who do not need it. For example, I have a patient who has COPD, CHF, DM, and AKA. She can’t work. She is on disability. She gets that one check a month and she pays her bills and for medications. She gets $21 of food stamps each month. She says she buys the bare essentials with the $21. She was told she has too much income coming in and the was why she got that amount in stamps. I think that is ridiculous! I know women who get above $400 in stamps. They get this amount because they have at least 3 children. Some of these women sell the stamps for cash. In my city, people who are on welfare either take training classes, work or have to enroll in school. I personally don’t think that’s enough. I feel if a person can go to school or do training because they receive benefits, I feel they can do it without receiving benefits. I feel the welfare program is not thorough enough. People put down anything on these applications and welfare office don’t do a thorough check behind the information. Many people get over on the system which leads to a surplus of people being on welfare for an extended period of time. According to the Census, 27.2% of the population in my city are living in poverty and receiving some type of welfare benefit. I don’t believe the benefits should be taken away, but I do believe it should be harder to receive the benefits. For the ones who qualify, I also believe there should be a time limit on the benefits. They should have to get a job within a certain amount of time or else they will have to be dropped from receiving benefits.

Reference

Roskin, M., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., & Jones, W. S. (2014). Political science: an introduction (13th ed.). Pearson.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/spartanburgcitysouthcarolina,spartanburgcountysouthcarolina/AGE135216 (Links to an external site.)

 

Collapse SubdiscussionJOEL TERWILLIGERJOEL TERWILLIGER
Dec 1, 2017Dec 1, 2017 at 11:21am
Manage Discussion Entry

You all raised a great point about how the federal welfare system has resulted in what many characterize as a “beauracratic morass” that tends to move slowly and not function to serve its original purpose.

Is the solution to have social safety nets be locally-governed and managed? Should (would?) tax dollars be better spent at the local level since communities have a better sense for their issues than a federal bureaucracy? For example, in San Francisco the homeless population is a serious issue and the city likely could better use a larger allocation of tax dollars toward preventing homelessness in the first place (i.e., drug intervention programs, treatment for the mentally ill, and so on). Other cities may have other social issues that are different and would want to spend tax dollars accordingly.

What are your thoughts?

Robyn HookerRobyn Hooker
Dec 1, 2017Dec 1, 2017 at 11:14pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Hello,

Tax dollars should be spent on the local levels.  As you pointed out, each state better understands there needs.  But ideally, the Senators Representatives from each state should be aware of what is need in their home state.  But most have been in their offices so long that they are out of touch with the conditions and people they are suppose to represent.  That’s why I feel things would be better handled at a state or local level.

Robyn

Erika Denise ApitErika Denise Apit
Dec 2, 2017Dec 2, 2017 at 4:54pm
Manage Discussion Entry

I personally think that allowing public welfare to be locally governed is better. It is because,like you said, it is the local governments who get  clearer picture of what problems and situations need to be addressed more than others. We live in a country where each state is quite unique and different and the kind of assistance that people need in one state like Illinois may not be what people who are in other states need. I think tax is better spent if that responsibility would be passed on to local governments since through this, budgets and funds will better be allocated to address a certain state’s timely and relevant problem.

Desiree EstradaDesiree Estrada
Dec 2, 2017Dec 2, 2017 at 5:41pm
Manage Discussion Entry

Yes, I agree that tax dollars would be better spent at the local level. Every city has their own issues and the local government should have a sense of what their community needs. One program I found  was a community-based program that targeted high school graduates with intellectual disabilities find employment. After many challenges, they were able to successfully help these students find work and stay working despite their disability, “the students who have exited the program have successfully maintained employment” (Hartman, 2009).  This will save the tax payers in the long run as they do not have to rely on public assistance as they are employed.

 

Hartman, Melissa A. Teaching Exceptional Children. Jul/Aug2009, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p6-11. 6p.

Jasmine MoyaJasmine Moya
Dec 3, 2017Dec 3, 2017 at 11:26pm
Manage Discussion Entry

I do believe that tax dollars should be used by the local government instead of federally. Those who live and work in their communities know what is needed and what is not. For instance, as a nurse you find that many policies and procedures are made not by those on the floors but by those who sit at a desk and have not worked on a unit in decades. If healthcare facilities encouraged the use of floor nurses to assist in updating or constructing policies and procedures there would be more appropriate policies for patient care at the bedside. How can the federal government have a national standard when no two states have the same needs on a local level.

Collapse SubdiscussionMarvin JenkinsMarvin Jenkins
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 12:07am
Manage Discussion Entry

Everybody runs into difficult patches in life where welfare assistance may be needed. Most Americans today are one lost paycheck away from being without food to eat, a home to live in, or in danger of losing their means of transportation because of the current economy and even natural disasters such as hurricane Irma. When bad things happen to good people, there are government welfare programs available at every level to help them until they find some form of stability. Welfare eligibility is open to every U.S. citizens because it is a right given to all. Those who receive assistance by way of taxpayer money are under greater scrutiny (Olson et. al., 2017).

The government welfare system is there to help, as written into the constitution that the intent of the government is to promote the general welfare of the people providing a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and that when government doesn’t meet these requirements it has failed its chief purpose. In other words, when the government welfare system does not help you, it fails at its primary goal to ensure people are treated equally and given the opportunities to have lives worth living. Government welfare programs exist for the purpose of serving those in need, and utilizing them fully is vital if you are in need of help (Roskin et. al., 2017).

The biggest criticism many people would give of federal programs such as welfare is that they failing to address the problem, and that they are in some respects making the level of poverty and dependence worse in the U.S so the programs should be abolished.

Reference

OLSON, J. G., MCFERRAN, B., MORALES, A. C., & DAHL, D. W. (2016). Wealth and Welfare: Divergent Moral Reactions to Ethical Consumer Choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 879-896. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv096

Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2017). Political Science: An introduction (14th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.

Rory BeebeRory Beebe
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 1:21am
Manage Discussion Entry

Marvin:

Your post is great, you gave me a new meaning to these programs as it relates to the constitution.  I have never thought of that in that way.  Yes, each one of us is one lost paycheck or disaster away from needing assistance. I was considering disaster relief as you stated Hurricane Irma. If you receive FEMA assistance it “does not count as income.” (FEMA, 2016) It will not affect anyone’s benefits or entitlements of welfare assistance, food stamps or Aid to families.  So, in the money from FEMA an entitlement.  If we feel that way, why don’t they pay out to all that ask for that aid?  The other side, what if the person that was involved was not receiving Welfare assistance, would they be able to receive this kind of support? I do not want to be the one that has a situation like this to find out, but if someone did have a fair bank account and they lost everything, would they have the right to pursue happens?

Rory

FEMA News Release 018, Disaster Aid Doesn’t Affect Government Benefits, November 2016. https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2016/11/02/disaster-aid-doesnt-affect-government-benefits (Links to an external site.)

Michelle OkorieMichelle Okorie
Nov 29, 2017Nov 29, 2017 at 4:05pm
Manage Discussion Entry

I agree that almost everyone would need welfare at some point. Imagine that during the 1980s and 1990s, criticism of public welfare escalated dramatically. Some states began to experiment with programs that required welfare recipients to find work within a specified period of time, after which welfare benefits would cease. Since job training and child care are important components of such programs, proponents acknowledged that “workfare” programs save little money in the short term. They contended, however, that workfare would reduce welfare costs and move people away from government dependency over the long term.