Government Argument Welfare

For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true

that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.  

                                                 

For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true

that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.  

                                                 

For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true

that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.  

                                                  

                                    GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT-WELFARE

For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these "family" programs and laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the most debated and most labored over "family" programs or law is Welfare. The argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and  drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime. Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food, and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more income so the poor no longer have the need to go out  and commit crimes to attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying citizens.

On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers,  and unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes them nothing. It is also true

that there exist a great number of people that abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs. These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The president recently introduced his "Workfare" plan. This plan, by forcing individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the number of future enrollments.

The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program should be left in place. The drain from welfare on  tax payer money, although great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.