American Welfare System & Its Costs
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Recently, there has been a major discussion of the American welfare system and its costs, and inherent in this discussion has been a question as to whether we are morally obligated to help people who are unproductive and who may have made themselves a burden on society. Taxpayers have become irate at the idea that some people are not doing their share but are expecting society at large to support them. Underlying this discussion is the question as to under what circumstances are we morally obligated to share the product of our labors with others? In seeking an answer, we must consider aspects of the concept of distributive justice and answer objections that might be raised. These are the ten real issues found in the research on this topic: 1. State control versus federal control. 2. Morality issue related to the idea that people should develop a work ethic rather than being weaned away from one. 3. The need to balance the federal budget. 4. Imposing time limits and work requirements. 6. Family cap so that no additional funds will be provided for additional births. 7. Withholding benefits for those who may be legal residents--demand for citizenship should be a requirement. 8. All benefits should be withheld from those who are here illegally to help reduce illegal immigration. 9. Benefits should be withheld from those who are subject to addiction or alcoholism and who will not go into a program and change their behavior.
. . .
ed as transfers from the haves to the have-nots and considers what justifies making these transfers at all. He finds that the principle is legitimate even when the methods are not. There are a variety of kinds of transfers, though we may only think of economic transfers when discussing the subject. One of the anomalies of the present system as noted by Murray is that since the mid-1960s social policy has demanded an extraordinary range of transfers from the most capable poor to the least capable poor, from the most law-abiding to the least law-abiding, and from the most responsible to the least responsible. Murray finds that such transfers from one set of the poor to another set of the poor are uncomfortably like robbery:
When we require money transfers form the obviously rich to the obviously poor, we at least have some room for error. Mistaken policies may offend our sense of right and wrong, but no great harm has been done to the donor. The same is not true of the non-economic transfers from poor to poor (Murray 204).
The disparity in income between those on welfare and those not on welfare differs from state to state, and the welfare provisions in different states can be widely divergent. Moffitt, Reville, and Winkle
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Department Education's, , Investment Program, Reville Winkler, AFDC California, Religious Texas, Children AFDC, Supreme Court, California GAIN, Fix Passel, welfare reform, social policy, net income, welfare system, welfare recipients, welfare rolls, afdc unit, welfare ellwood, american social policy, american social, social domestic policy, iowa family investment, welfare recipients seek, social security, americans democratic action,
Approximate Word count = 2681
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
