Poverty in the Land of the Free
Why is there so much poverty in wealthy country like the United States? And we might also ask: why do so many Americans dislike anti-poverty programs? This is the question posed by Martin Gilens in his (2019) book Why Do Americans Hate Welfare?
Dramatic cuts in welfare have been called for from politicians who represent both major political parties in the U.S. In this case, they are capitalizing on distorted public opinions and “feelings,” rather than data, to further erode crucial aspects of a social safety net that is already full of holes. So again, we must ask – why?
Gilens research aims to answer this question (more on that later). For now, lets take a look at some facts and information contained in official government statistics, which are put together by the US Census Bureau.
In order to talk about “poverty” we should first agree on a working definition.
To define poverty in America, the Census Bureau uses what are called ‘poverty thresholds’ or Official Poverty Measures (OPM), updated each year. Note that there are two different versions of the federal poverty measure. The differences may be slight but they are important:
- The poverty thresholds, and
- The poverty guidelines
Poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure. They are updated each year by the Census Bureau. The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purpose — for instance, they are used to prepare estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each year. To be clear, all U.S. government official poverty population figures are calculated using the poverty thresholds, not the guidelines. These thresholds are applied to a family’s income to determine their poverty status. Official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index.
Note that the official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or non-cash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). To put it simply, in 2020, a family of 4 is considered to be living in poverty if their family income falls below $26,200.
The poverty guidelines are another federal poverty measure. They are issued each year in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds, which are used to determine financial eligibility for certain federal programs.
Poverty as of 2019
In 2019, the overall poverty rate in the U.S. is: 10.5% or 34.0 million people. Almost half of those (15.5 million) were living in deep poverty, with reported family income below one-half of the poverty threshold.
To put this is terms of income, the percentage of people who fell below the poverty line — $25,926 for a family of four — in 2019
Child Poverty Rate: 14.4% (10.5 million people)
Percentage of children under age 18 who fell below the poverty line in 2019
Women’s Poverty Rate: 11.5% (19.0 million people)
Percentage of females who fell below the poverty line in 2019
African American Poverty Rate: 18.8% (8.1 million people)
Percentage of African Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2019
Hispanic Poverty Rate: 15.7% (9.5 million people)
Percentage of Hispanics who fell below the poverty line in 2019
White Poverty Rate: 7.3% (14.2 million people)
Percentage of non-Hispanic whites who fell below the poverty line in 2019
Native American Poverty Rate: 23.0% (600,000 people)
Percentage of Native Americans who fell below the poverty line in 2019
People with Disabilities Poverty Rate: 22.5% (3.3 million people)
Percentage of people with disabilities ages 18 to 64 who fell below the poverty line in 2019
To summarize, these rates tell us that Whites by far constitute the largest number of people who are living in poverty; African Americans are disproportionately represented as a group (18.8% vs. 7.3% of whites). This out-sized representation contributes significantly to the perception that African Americans are taking advantage of the system, even though more whites receive benefits. Children are also represented in high numbers as are the elderly, who are not distinguished in this table.
United Nations Report on Extreme Poverty
Not long ago (December 2017), the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Philip Alston, issued a formal statement which provided an assessment of poverty in the United States. His report details findings from a 15-day fact-finding mission that took him into some of the poorest neighborhoods in the U.S., in states that included California, Alabama, Georgia, Puerto Rico, West Virginia, and Washington DC.
Alston began his statement with a nod to the passing of sweeping new tax reforms, as he said “my visit coincides with a dramatic change of direction in US policies relating to inequality and extreme poverty. The proposed tax reform package stakes out America’s bid to become the most unequal society in the world, and will greatly increase the already high levels of wealth and income inequality between the richest 1% and the poorest 50% of Americans.”
Alston goes on to acknowledge that “the United States is one of the world’s richest, most powerful and technologically innovative countries; but neither its wealth nor its power nor its technology is being harnessed to address the situation in which 40 million people continue to live in poverty.”
“American exceptionalism,” he points out, “was a constant theme in my conversations. But instead of realizing its founders’ admirable commitments, today’s United States has proved itself to be exceptional in far more problematic ways that are shockingly at odds with its immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights. As a result, contrasts between private wealth and public squalor abound.”
He further notes that “in practice, the United States is alone among developed countries in insisting that while human rights are of fundamental importance, they do not include rights that guard against dying of hunger, dying from a lack of access to affordable healthcare, or growing up in a context of total deprivation. . . at the end of the day, particularly in a rich country like the USA, the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power. With political will, it could readily be eliminated.”
[Note: Alston is also a professor of law at New York University].
The Deserving and the Undeserving Poor
Back to Gilens. His research calls upon a wide range of empirical sources to argue that the problem is more complex; that Americans don’t simply all hate welfare.
According to his findings:
Americans support government aid to people they believe are “deserving” recipients; in other words, the worthy poor.
Americans are grossly misinformed about who is actually getting formal assistance, mainly because the media misrepresents welfare recipients.
Media representations, which are mostly visual, disproportionately over-represent African-Americans as aid recipients – especially single mothers.
Media executives, especially editors and journalists, are as misinformed as the public. Their life experiences are traditionally far removed from first-hand experiences of poverty/knowing poor people. This makes it difficult to them to understand and appropriately relate to those experiences, which in turn distorts media narratives and results in misreporting.
Distorted understandings of race are deeply embedded in the making of welfare policy, resulting in welfare being understood as “black” serving program. As such, people judge it as not deserving of support (Gilens, 2019).
Contradictions
What is interesting about Gilens research is that he is able to analyze public opinion polling data to show that there is, in fact, widespread support for the idea of a social safety net in general and for welfare to the poor in particular. But there are some inconsistencies that emerge, as these sentiments did not carryover and translate as support for African Americans. What and how did this happen?
According to Gilens, media representations of people living in poverty changed over time. He studied book reviews and stories about poverty and noted that these started to increase in the time period of the 1960s. At this time, the number of welfare recipients started to grow in connection with the racial turmoil and civil unrest that occurred during that time. This was true for black as well as white recipients. Whites especially, due to their larger overall numbers, constituted the largest number of welfare recipients. Despite this, the public came to see welfare as a program that mainly benefited African-Americans. Gilens attributes this to distorted media narratives about poverty and welfare, many of which still have currency in our present time.
The important takeaway here is not that the media simply act as an amplifier of public opinion; they are in many respects responsible for manufacturing public opinion. Ultimately, this exerts an major influence on our public policy, which instead of being based on facts ends up cynically indulging people’s feelings about who should get public help and who should be written off as unworthy.
This is why we see in the United States that there is unwavering support for what are essentially draconian welfare reforms that have the effect of hurting the most needy in the interest of hurting those that the public believes should be punished. Americans, according to Gilens, support these cuts for reasons that they mistake who is on welfare, attributing many among them to be undeserving.
These views link up to other narratives and ideas that run deep in American culture. For example, the idea that everyone who works hard will be able to achieve their dreams, the idea that everyone must assert “personal responsibility” as this pertains to work and taking care of their family, and the idea that relying on the government help for any reason is indicative of personal failing.
A Perfect Problem In An Imperfect World
(The following article is re-blogged: “The myth destroying America: Why social mobility is beyond ordinary people’s control,” by Sean McElwee)
Many cultures have viewed poverty as an inescapable part of an imperfect world. Throughout history, societies have suffered from two kinds of poverty: social poverty, which withholds from some people the opportunities available to others; and biological poverty, which puts the very lives of individuals at risk due to lack of food and shelter. Perhaps social poverty can never be eradicated, but in many countries around the world, biological poverty is a thing of the past.
Until recently, most people hovered very close to the biological poverty line, below which a person lacks enough calories to sustain life for long. Even small miscalculations or misfortunes could easily push people below that line, into starvation. Natural disasters and man-made calamities often plunged entire populations over the abyss, causing the death of millions.
Today most of the world’s people have a safety net stretched below them [note: the very idea of a “safety net” is under attack in the United States for political reasons and ideologies born out of “free market” fundamentalism; some politicians have referred to the net as a “hammock”]. Individuals are protected from personal misfortune by insurance, state-sponsored social security and a plethora of local and international NGOs. When calamity strikes an entire region, worldwide relief efforts are usually successful in preventing the worst. People still suffer from numerous degradations, humiliations and poverty-related illnesses, but in most countries, nobody is starving to death. In fact, in many societies, more people are in danger of dying from obesity than from starvation.
As science began to solve one unsolvable problem after another, many became convinced that humankind could overcome any and every problem by acquiring and applying new knowledge. Poverty, sickness, wars, famines, old age and death itself were not the inevitable fate of humankind. They were simply the fruits of our ignorance.
We are living in a technical age. Many are convinced that science and technology hold the answers to all our problems. We should just let the scientists and technicians go on with their work, and they will create heaven here on earth. But science is not an enterprise that takes place on some superior moral or spiritual plane above the rest of human activity. Like all other parts of our culture, it is shaped by economic, political and religious interests.
Poverty, consequently, rather than being seen as a “technical” problem that might be fixed is often seen as a moral failing: it is the poor themselves that are to be blamed.
Research on Poverty
According to a new report from the Pew Research Center, Americans are almost evenly split over who is responsible for poverty and whether the poor have it easy or hard. Here are some factoids from the data:
44% think that the government should do more for the needy, even if it means more debt
51% think the government can’t afford to do more for the needy and shouldn’t
45% think that poor people today have it easy
47% think that poor people have it hard
What is interesting here is how survey responses correlate with whether the respondents themselves are rich or poor. Not surprisingly, a proportionately larger number of the least economically secure (2/3rds) think government benefits don’t go far enough; the proportion of people who share this view diminishes among economically secure people (only 1/3rd). The pattern repeats again when people are asked whether the government should and can do more – 60% of the least economically secure say “yes,” while 62% of the most secure say “no.”
The Myth of the American Dream
In the United States, there is a strongly held conviction that with hard work, anyone can make it into the middle class. Pew finds, however, that Americans are far more likely than people in other countries to believe that work determines success, as opposed to other factors beyond an individual’s control. Unfortunately, this positivity comes with a negative side — a tendency to pathologize those living in poverty.
In other words, Americans are more inclined to blame individuals for structural problems. Thus we find that 60 percent of Americans (compared with 26 percent of Europeans) say that the poor are “lazy.” Only 29 percent of Americans say those living in poverty are trapped in poverty by “factors beyond their control” (compared with 60 percent of Europeans).
Again, it is important to distinguish here how the survey responses provided by people reflect their “beliefs” – and this differs from the data and evidence. While a majority of Americans might think that hard work determines success and that it should be relatively simple business to climb and remain out of poverty, the empirical reality is that the United States has a relatively entrenched upper class, but very precarious, ever-shifting lower and middle classes.
As for welfare, while many Americans hate welfare, the data suggest they are fairly likely to fall into it at one point or another. In their recent book, “Chasing the American Dream,” sociologists Mark Robert Rank, Thomas Hirschl and Kirk Foster argue that the American experience is more fluid than both liberals and conservatives believe. Using Panel Survey of Income Dynamics (PSID) data — a survey that tracked 5,000 households (18,000 individuals) from 1968 and 2010 — they show that many Americans have temporary bouts of affluence (defined as eight times the poverty line), but also temporary bouts of poverty, unemployment and welfare use.
Keep in mind that “welfare” is not just food stamps. This study tracked use of Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families/Aid to Families with Dependent Children (food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, and any other cash/in-kind programs that rely on income level to qualify. The chart below illustrates different measures of economic insecurity experienced by people relative to time spent claiming benefits.
Researchers found that a large number of Americans eventually fall into one of the “welfare” categories, but few stay “welfare dependent” for long. Instead, the social safety net does as it is intended – it catches them – and allows them to get back on their feet.
The same authors also found that the risk of poverty is higher for people of color. (Since the PSID began in 1968, most non-white people in the survey have been black.) And while most Americans will at some time experience affluence, again, this experience is segregated by race.
Social Mobility
In a study published earlier this year, Rank and Hirschl examine the top 1 percent of wage earners and find that entry into it is more fluid than previously thought. They find that 11 percent of Americans will enter the 1 percent at some point in their lives. But here again, access is deeply segregated. Whites are nearly seven times more likely to enter the 1 percent than non-whites. Further, those without physical disability and those who are married are far more likely to enter the 1 percent. The researchers, however, didn’t measure how being born into wealth effects an individual’s chances, but there are other ways to estimate this effect.
For instance, a 2007 Treasury Department study of inequality allows us to examine mobility at the most elite level. On the horizontal axis (see below) is an individual’s position on the income spectrum in 1996. On the vertical level is where they were in 2005. To examine the myth of mobility, I focused on the chances of making it into the top 10, 5 or 1 percent. We see that these chances are abysmal. Only .2 percent of those who began in the bottom quintile made it into the top 1 percent. In contrast, 82.7 percent of those who began in the top 1 percent remained in the top 10 percent a decade later.
One recent summary of twin studies suggests that “economic outcomes and preferences, once corrected for measurement error, appear to be about as heritable as many medical conditions and personality traits.” Another finds that wages are more heritable than height. Economists estimate that the intergenerational elasticity of income, or how much income parents pass onto their children, is approximately 0.5 in the U.S. This means that parents in the U.S. pass on 50 percent of their incomes to their children. In Canada, parents pass on only 19 percent of their incomes, and in the Nordic countries, where mobility is high, the rate ranges from 15 percent (in Denmark) to 27 percent (in Sweden).
There is reason to believe that wealth, which is far more unequally distributed than income, is also more heritable. In his recent book, “The Son Also Rises,” Gregory Clark explores social mobility in societies spanning centuries. According to Clark, “current studies… overestimate overall mobility.” He argues as follows:
“Groups that seem to persist in low or high status, such as the black and the Jewish populations in the United States, are not exceptions to a general rule of higher intergenerational mobility. They are experiencing the same universal rates of slow intergenerational mobility as the rest of the population. Their visibility, combined with a mistaken impression of rapid social mobility in the majority population, makes them seem like an exception to a rule. The are in instead the exemplary of the rule of low rates of social mobility.”
Clark finds that the residual effects of wealth remain for 10 to 15 generations. As one reviewer writes, “in the long run, intergenerational mobility is far slower than conventional estimates suggest. If your ancestors made it to the top of society… the probability is that you have high social status too.” While parents pass on about half of their income (at least in the United States), Clark estimates that they pass on about 75 percent of their wealth.
Thus, what Rank and Hirschl identify, an often-changing 1 percent, is primarily a shuffling between the almost affluent and the rich, rather than what we would consider true social mobility.
The American story, then, is different than normally imagined. For one, many Americans are living increasingly precarious existences. In another paper, Hirschl and Rank find that younger Americans in their sample are more likely to be asset poor at some point in their lives. But more importantly, a majority of Americans will at some point come to rely on the safety net. Rather than being a society of “makers” and “takers,” we are a society of “makers” who invest in a safety net we will all likely come in contact with at one point or another.
The Gini Coefficient measures how equally distributed resources are, on a scale from 0 to 1. In the case of 0, everyone shares all resources equally, and in a society with a coefficient of 1, a single person would own everything. While income in the U.S. is distributed unequally, with a .574 gini, wealth is distributed far more unequally, with a gini of .834 — and financial assets are distributed with a gini of .908, with the richest 10 percent own a whopping 83 percent.
Wealth and financial assets are the ticket to long-term financial stability; those who inherit wealth need never fear relying on the safety net. And it is these few individuals, shielded from the need to sell their labor on the market, who have created the divisive “makers” and “takers” narrative in our contemporary politics.
Using race as a wedge, they have tried to gut programs that nearly all Americans will rely on. They have created the myth of the self-made individual, when in fact, most Americans will eventually need to rely on the safety net. They treat the safety net as a benefit exclusively for non-whites, when in reality, whites depend upon it too (even if people of color are disproportionately affected).
As many scholars have noted before, the way the welfare state works (where inefficient tax credits are given to the middle class) is a big part of why this delusion has been sustained.
It is therefore not that Americans believe themselves to be “temporarily embarrassed millionaires,” but rather “self-made men” (with a dose of racism and sexism), that drives opposition to the welfare state.
And by this, I mean that while most people understand they are not likely to become millionaires, few among them realize how much government programs have benefited them throughout their lives.
Sources
The source for this article, including the charts referenced in it is Sean McElwee. His original article, published by Salon, is entitled “The myth destroying America: Why social mobility is beyond ordinary people’s control.” Link no longer available.
Poverty Data Sources
The Census Bureau reports poverty data from several major household surveys and programs.
The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) is the source of official national poverty estimates. The American Community Survey (ACS) provides single and multi-year estimates for smaller areas.
The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) provides longitudinal estimates.
The Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program provides model-based poverty estimates for school districts, counties, and states.
Discussion Questions
How should an affluent society like the United States respond to poverty?
Millions of Americans lack access to sufficient food and shelter. What should we do with them?
Why do you think so many Americans hate the idea of welfare even as they also support helping the poor?
Do you think the United States should provide for a social safety net? (setting a minimum threshold for subsistence…or not?)
When you close your eyes an imagine a picture of someone who fits the description of “deserving poor” what do they look like? Do the same for “undeserving poor.” What do they look like? (think in terms of age, gender, race).
What do you think about programs like Medicaid and Medicare? Do you know what they are and how they work? (one is an anti-poverty program and the other is a benefit for people over the age of 65 that is funded through payroll deductions over the course of one’s working lifetime). Should we maintain these programs, make them more or less available, or get rid of them?
How might “personal responsibility,” “personal freedom,” and “small government” narratives make it difficult to deal with social problems at the policy level?
How do you think we might address the problem of persistent inter-generational poverty and social inequality (think about places like Appalachia, WVA and Kentucky in particular, and even rural and deindustrialized parts of Pennsylvania)?
Do you think that the government providing things like job training and food stamps are enough to fix the problem? Is it too much help or not enough?
What do you think about the sentiment “No one deserves to be poor?” Or do some people deserve it and, likewise, deserve to be punished?
How might our economy be systematically organized, even “rigged,” to condemn many people, including a disproportionate number of African Americans, to live lives of poverty and desperation?
Look at your own neighborhoods and towns. Do you think the poverty that you see is a product of economic structural failure (widespread job loss and the re-ordering of the local economy to provide only low wage jobs) or do you think it is the result of people simply not working hard enough?
There is no question about whether or not we should fix poverty. There is a direct link between poverty and crime. Along with that statement, nobody deserves to struggle through life when there are funds and organizations that can help them get back on their feet. The government assistance programs that we have put in place today are not doing a great job and they need to be improved, however many Americans feel that we are assisting the poor and addicts, along with other horrible stereotypes. The average person on food stamps receives 1.25 per meal, per person. This is not enough to feed someone a healthy and well balanced meal. There are many government assistance programs like WIC, food stamps, government housing, and unemployment. However, as a child from a family who relied on unemployment due to my fathers seasonal work, I can say that it is simply not enough to get by on. For 2 years, my father was unemployed, and eventually, his unemployment ran out. Due to him working for the union he was unable to get a new job outside of the union and the unemployment list was long. This made it increasingly tough for us to get by. It was no fault of his own, there was just no jobs at the time. Unemployment also only covers about 50-60% of what you would make if you were employed and there is a cap. It is possible to live off of unemployment when you have to but many people struggle. I feel like we need to increase food stamps for obvious reasons, increase unemployed and make government benefits more livable because the truth is, most of the people getting these benefits truly need them.
The US has already responded to issues regarding poverty. We have implemented several programs which help individuals as well as families woh fall in the poverty zone. Nothing will honestly, in my opinion, ever be enough to solve the poverty issue we face but we have certainly reduced poverty levels over the year. I am not sure we can do much more than continue to boost programs which not only help with money issues but can also help with job searching. Poverty, a lot of the times fall within the same families and this is mostly due to people being a product of their environment and job search assistance may be necessary for someone who is a product of their environment. Someone who has followed in the footsteps of their parents or other family members before them who may reside in low income areas or areas with a high crime rate may not even know how to generate a proper resume. Job search assistance can assist someone in not only securing employment but it can also help them to pas interviews successfully and to complete a proper resume or application. There are so many people who lack the proper guidance from the exact people who are supposed to push them to do better, their family and in this case, it is imperative that we as a country and society be there for them and offer any assistance we are able to ensure their success.
It is one of the saddest things when you see people who are visibly struggling regarding access to shelter and food. If I was able, I would put a food bank on every corner, I would make my rounds through various cities and towns to make sure I was helping everyone I could. When you see someone who is struggling or on the street asking for food and shelter, you could ask them if they know where local food banks and shelters are and if they don’t, point them in the right direction. You could even offer them food or maybe a little cash to get them by. I know most people drive past the homeless people on the side of the road and do just that, drive by. Most people, in my opinion, drive by because they think they are faking or just looking for money for drugs or alcohol but how much could it hurt to just throw them a dollar? or a burger? Maybe even a flyer for a local shelter. Maybe, just maybe instead of judging someone that you are just seeing with your eyes, try and talk to them. Try to find out why they are where they are and try to help them. Sometimes a person might just need an ear and maybe you can be the difference.
Welfare is the devil to some people, a lot of people think welfare is abused and in some cases, it may be but that isn’t for us to judge, it is for our government to solve. People hate “free” things until free things are offered to them, then they are all for it! I do believe welfare is abused at time but I also think it is a very good and healthy program for those who are in actual need and we shouldn’t try to take away something that actually helps those who need it. Sure, we can maybe throw some ideas around to fix it but suggesting we totally rid the country of welfare just isn’t fair. It is sad but our country is filled with so many selfish people who believe welfare and the poor should just be rid of and that just wouldn’t be us coming together as a respectable country, that would be us doing a selfish act which would only benefit us. The main reason I feel as though people hate the idea of welfare is because without, they wouldn’t have any taxes to pay for it. It would just be more money in their pockets and they’d rather keep it themselves than help anyone who may actually need it more.
Yes, I think there should be a safety net. I also think that those safety nets should be based off of individual cases. Not everyone in the US falls under the same set of circumstances and what may work for one person may not work for another.
A person who is unable to work due to unforeseen circumstances in life would fall perfectly under what the world perceives as “deserving poor” whereas, “undeserving poor” would be a person who just refused to work, a person who is completely able to work but chooses not to. These people are one of the reasons welfare leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. We must also remember to not judge someone based off of their employment status. Just because someone is unemployed and you may THINK they are able to work, does not mean they are. We are a society full of people who jump to conclusions and that is something that truly needs to end.
Medicaid and Medicare are two very beneficial programs to who helps not only our elderly but our other members of society who struggle with disabilities. These two programs should be around forever, at no point would I ever think there would be a good enough reason to get rid of either of these programs.
I don’t think anything will ever be enough help, whether we are in a affluent society like ours or if we are in an under privileged society. The government and we as a whole could never do enough to help those in need and that is mostly because we won’t. The programs we have implemented would not be enough to help other places that fall under our poverty line, some places could honestly never be helped the way we have. Some places deserve so much more attention and assistance than they receive regarding poverty and the less fortunate in our world. I traveled to Jamaica in previous years and that experience humbled me more than I could have ever imagined. I drove past people installing new roofs using only a hammer and single nails, they don’t even have the privilege of having nail guns. So no, I don’t think the programs we have would ever be enough for other societies and countries. This is an issue that needs solved but sadly I feel as though it will always go unsolved and those in need will a lot of the times be looked over.
When it comes to welfare and poverty, there is an issue in this country. Many people have an issue with welfare and the people who are on welfare, because they see it as “free money”. These people also see the people on welfare as lazy. I feel, along with many others that this is true. These people that complain about welfare don’t look into as much as they should. They don’t know that the people on welfare are actually in need because they do not get the assistance that they normally should to survive and live. They need this money to be able to provide for themselves and their family. The people that complain about welfare also are not able to take advantage of the program. Poverty and welfare directly correlate to each other. People who typically are below the poverty line and in poverty are usually on welfare and are getting government assistance because they are not given the same chances as everyone else.
How should anyone respond to poverty, everyone has their own opinions about this topic. Americans in poverty tend to have less healthy diets, higher smoking rates, and higher stress levels. Americans in poverty also tend to have worse health outcomes because they are less likely to receive medical care. This is to a large extent due to lack of health insurance among low-income populations. Everyone in poverty have tendencies of raising their stress levels is high it becomes outrageous over the things that’s going on in their life. There are multiple ways to solve poverty in the United States ; increasing employment , paid family and sick leave , etc. Poverty should be defined in terms of those who are denied the minimal levels of health, housing, food, and education that our present stage of scientific knowledge specifics as necessary for life as it is now lived in the United States. Researchers estimates that between forty and fifty million Americans, or about a fourth of the population, are now living in poverty. Not just below the level of comfortable living, but real poverty, in the old-fashioned sense of the word that they are hard put to it to get the mere necessities, beginning with enough to eat.
The United States is a place where you are given so many opportunities and where freedom is everywhere. I feel that most homeless people are in there scenario because of themselves, sometimes there is the case where it is out of there control. The government does a lot to begin with helping out as much as they can. If you do not want to help yourself and try to get out of your bad scenario why should you have to rely on someone else aka the government to do it for you? For the people that do lack food and shelter should have to do some type of work to earn those things. Everyone has to work for what you want in this world. I believe the government should possibly have a program where they set up the less fortunate with fixer up homes and they do the work or do as much as possible then eventually turns into their homes. It would be almost impossible to help every single person out but taking a little at a time will eventually start to solve the issue.
Almost all of the problematic (not data informed assumptions) referred to in the article are reflected in this post. “i.e. most people who are on welfare are there due to their own individual failures.” Instead of engaging fully with the critical questions posed, you instead use this pose to state personal beliefs. Thank you for this. As it illustrates one of the issues/problems the article aims to point out – namely, that most, but not all, people’s personal beliefs are not based on an understanding of the research and data on poverty, who is poor, etc. The result of this is that we can’t get politicians to create social policies to fix these problems. For if poverty is only the individual’s fault, there is no need to do anything to address it – they just need to try harder right? And so the cycle of poverty continues.
I created this space to offer students a place to reflect critically about what they believe and to examine those beliefs against the evidence, as this in turn can prompt reflections about the contradictions inherent in many of those beliefs. Read some of the comments of your classmates. Try to do better next time.
I believe so many people despise welfare because they can’t take advantage of it. I feel like most peoples beliefs are those who are on welfare don’t deserve it because they are taking advantage of the system. Although, if you really look at the statistics, most people who are on welfare actually need it. i know a lot of the people who I’ve talked to bout this think that there should be mandatory drug testing in place to qualify. A lot of people think they majority of people on welfare are abusing the system by having a bunch of kids to get more money and assistance, or having their baby daddy live with them and not claiming two incomes. People are all for helping the poor, well you know the poor that “deserve” it. It varies from person to person as to what a deserving poor person is. In my opinion people who are against welfare are the ones who are salty that they actually have to work for a living. Ive talked to a few people about this and I’ve gotten lot of responses that entail, ‘if I have t work for a living, so should they”. Even my mother has gotten frustrated with people on welfare because she is a single mother of two who has worked three jobs her whole life and has never gotten government assistance, and her mindset is “if I can do it without government assistance, so can they”. But reality is, not everyone can do that.
The United States is one of the worlds richest countries their is. I don’t think there is any reason why these are over 40 million people suffering due to poverty. I’m aware you can’t help everyone but 40 million people is a excessive. So many people frown upon “welfare” and any assistance from the government but how else can this country assist people. I don’t think people are aware that welfare includes Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc. So in other words it’s contradicting to say “people who are on welfare are lazy” because would that make a person receiving unemployment benefits “lazy” as well. There are people that abuse the assistance but that should not put a label on the ones who really need the help. People hate the idea of “welfare” but frown and judge upon those who are struggling. Society doesn’t want to look at these people and help and they also don’t expect the government to help.. so what is there left to do ? With the millions of money America has I believe they should implicate more shelters for them, more resources, etc. They are citizens just like any other person walking this earth, we shouldn’t turn a blind eye and ignore them suffering simply because we don’t agree with it.
I strongly believe that the United States should implement a better policy in regard to poverty. An affluent society should respond to this issue by helping the poor and not having them fend for food and shelter on their own. The research discussed in the post about 51% think that the government cannot afford to do anything for the poor and that they shouldn’t is very contradictory. In my opinion, if the government can afford to send out stimulus checks to people during the pandemic, then they can afford to put a little more towards poor/homeless people. The research states that 47% of people think that the poor have it hard in todays society, and I strongly agree with that. Back in my grandparent’s generation, they didn’t see a lot of poor people because taxes, gas, and just everyday essentials weren’t as expensive as they are today. In those generations, it wasn’t hard for people to find jobs. Now a days, in order to find a good paying job, you have to go to school and get a degree which means potentially being in a lot of debt. People don’t necessarily become poor by being in debt, they can also become poor by terrible spending habits. A way the United States can help poverty is by lowering prices of college, taxes, etc. If the essential things in life were not as expensive, then maybe the percentage of poor people would start to decline. Another way is for the United States to come up with jobs for these people.
I personally believe the United States should instate better social safety nets. We are way too prosperous of a nation to not provide to our citizens that are in need. If we have the budget for 600-700 billion spent on our military, then we can spare a few billion to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for our citizens. I believe we should have public housing built. It would provide jobs for many people who need them. We could also employ people living there to be cooks, to clean houses, and to be maintenance crew for their public housing space. This would also allow them to have experience for when they save up and try to find a better paying job, instead of being socially isolated. I believe most people hate the idea of welfare due to the long sought after “American Dream”. Also, it seems that each new generation is accepting social safety nets better than the previous generation. This goes to show that times are changing. The answer to the question, “Should we fix poverty?”, is an easy yes. Solving poverty will help reduce crime. However, more importantly, it will better the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We are a first world country that leaves our own citizens behind.
Being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the United States has a responsibility to end poverty within its borders for all its citizens. It is embarrassing that 12.7% of the population is living in poverty. Even more staggering is the 18.5 million souls living across our country in deep poverty. How can so much wealth be controlled by such few people, and this not get solved privately? During my first five years in the military when my wife was a stay at home mom and she was finishing her degree, we qualified for government safety net programs. I was working full time in the Air Force and we had two young girls under three years old. We qualified and received WIC benefits so I definitely believe the United States should provide for a social safety net. The problem is that an E-4 in the military, working full time with a family has a base pay that is not covering the expenses to get them out of poverty. I believe programs like Medicaid and Medicare should end and be replaced with a universal health care program. A persons heath care costs or their overall wellness should not be a factor in their poverty level and their debt.
I feel like so many people want to help the poor and homeless people in the United States yet when it comes to talking about welfare a lot of those same people are opposed. Many people think that those who are on welfare are “lazy” or even “drug addicts” and they just don’ want to work so they take advantage of the system and get welfare benefits. For the most part this is not true. Many of those people need welfare benefits just to survive. I feel like the people who hate the idea of welfare don’t really understand it. They think they are working to support the people in the United States who are lazy and don’t want to work. The word “welfare” just has a stigma connected to it that will never go away. But if you bring up volunteering at a food bank or homeless shelter that same person will jump at the opportunity! Maybe all we really need to do in the United States is come up with a new name for “welfare” and more people will support it.
I feel like the US should take the homes that are abandon around the city and country to create a program where people who are homeless can work on flipping houses while having a place to stay. Giving the opportunity for those who are in poverty a chance to get out of the spot They are in. I think of it as a rebuilding the country and city while teaching people new skills. If this program was to become a thing I don’t think it should be named under the welfare system because a lot of people would take that and make it seem like these people in poverty want a handout. It needs to be used as a tool to rebuild our society. I could see how people would get upset with the welfare system because not everyone has access to the same resources, which makes it hard when people that have the resources abuse them and I think that’s what makes people angry there are people who need help and there are also people who have cheated the system. I think that the US should have a safety net for those who are trying to live in this world of our but for those who are banking on the temporary help to be forever then maybe they don’t need the help. Help is supposed get you on the right track in my opinion. When imagining what someone would look like is hard, I don’t think I could everyone needs help and everyone struggles in ways that nobody really knows as an outsider. I think we should keep programs like medicaid because it is harder for older people to get work. People who have access to resources that allow them to have personal freedoms are lucky not everyone does which again cause the social issues. I think that it’s not enough we need people being trained in more jobs other then fast food we need workshops that can teach people how to use there skills.
I believe we should fix poverty but I also think it will never really be fixed truly ! There are too many hard working jobs with not enough pay and there are too many easy jobs with not enough pay. Basically the more labor we do the less pay we get, the less labor we do the more pay we get is what it’s looking like. Now no one will want to do the hard jobs and that will effect many things such as our living situations with no one wanting to do construction. Construction is a lot of labor for not enough pay mean while many are sitting behind desks making phone calls all day for if not the same but more pay !!!
George Carlins basic argument about the American Dream?
That it is called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. You have no choice we all have owners. These owners own everything and control all of the news and information we get to hear the game is rigged and know one notices he says. The owners wants obedient workers, and they don’t care about us he says.
The United States should provide for a social safety net some way or another. It is an extremely important part of modern society, especially one that has the ability to do so, to keep people from starving to death… Especially in the case of the United States, help for the poorest among us is possible and, actually, very feasible financially. I do believe there should be some minimum level of help that can be provided for people who need it to live decent lives. Medicare and Medicaid are, as of right now, necessities for some people who cannot afford health care on their own. I have a loose understanding of the two programs, with no in depth knowledge of how they work. If we were to get rid of Medicaid, many, many poor Americans would struggle and not be able to get medical assistance, and many may die from disease or a medical condition. “Personal responsibility” makes some things hard to get done because there are tons of Americans who believe that whether you are poor or not is solely based on how hard an individual works and how much they want to be wealthy. Though, as we know, hard work DOES NOT equal wealth, at least, not often. The issue of inter-generational social inequality is, in my opinion, a very complicated matter that cannot be fixed by government programs alone, or at least not very quickly through government programs. The government providing things like job training and food stamps definitely help people in these situations, but do not necessarily fix the problem.
Poverty will always be a problem in the U.S until they create more jobs with less requirements. Poverty leads to crimes because if people are poor with no hope of getting a job, they will go out and rob stores,banks,people,etc. When people have no faith, they will do anything to get some money in their pocket just to feel superior and to have some sense of happiness even if they get caught. People are always getting left behind because most people in poverty never went to secondary education or let alone even graduate highschool so when they create new jobs, they wont even higher anyone without education because of the simple fact they didn’t graduate so they feel like they wont finish the job .
I think that we should do what we can to help with the poverty issue. However, I do not believe the problem can be solved entirely. The government does have ways attempting to help with the wage gap, such as progressive income tax and medicare. Their efforts are still coming up short since the wage gap is still very large. I can’t think of a perfect solution to the problem, but it is possible to do more to aid it. No government is a utopia.
Some may suggest that everyone should get equal pay. We can’t solve the issue by making everyone have equal wages like communism. That could make the poverty problem even worse. Nations that have practiced communism have experience low economic growth and have had high rates of poverty.
When I look at poverty and social class in the United States at I look at it in a racial, gender and regional aspect. The opportunities and standards for African American and Caucasian individuals are extremely different. First let’s start by looking how race and region come into play. Let’s simply look at the city of McKeesport and Pittsburgh at one point it was one biggest cities and best places for jobs in the steel mill industry in America. At that time there where millionaires and rich folks living all over live here. Once the steel mills shut down of the biggest issues that the Pittsburgh economy dealt with was the term “White Flight” meaning when the richer Caucasian population started leaving the city they took their money with them now effecting the economy. Now imagine how this impacted the Whites and Blacks so differently. Although they say the North is less racially bias this brought forth a huge problem. Whites were able to have better opportunities to find jobs compared to the African Americans. Now leaving a lot of African Americans to fend for themselves financially. Many people may argue there are many “resources” around to aid help people in need, but the issue is they are understaffed, over populated, and not well funded most of the time. When you compare this to the south take Atlanta Georgia for example they are one of the cities with the most African American millionaires in the country meaning a lot of more financial opportunities for African Americans in that region. With all of this said we have to look at how social class and poverty effects women. In society women face a lot of hardships for job opportunities and while also dealing with the “glass ceiling.” When you look at the statics not only is hard for women to achieve the same pay grade or job opportunities as white men, but white women have a better chance at obtaining jobs than black women.
To begin with the United States already has Social Safety Net programs, and it is meant to protect the “poor” from poverty and to help Americans if they come across hard times. I do believe that since we are the richest country in the world they can achieve constructing a new Social Safety Net program, because the modern Social Safety Net programs are not helping the current poverty rate. As you look around the world they are closings schools to make more living spaces (e.g. apartments), and that is not the issue; the issue is that we still have homeless people out in the streets all year round with no concern to help them. How many apartments does one city need? What about having a decent ratio of apartments and homeless shelters? You will probably see at least ten homeless Americans in each city. Creating a program where there will be fewer homeless Americans on the streets in a year or two will definitely decrease the poverty rate. The program will include food services to provide breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Another program will include job readiness (e.g. dress for success, building your resumé, and mock interviews). Beginning with just those two programs specifically there will be a dramatic drop in the poverty rate, because majority of these homeless people just need a little push to get them where they need be again.
I’m a stronger believer that there should be programs like Medicare and Medicaid. They are for people who need financial support when it comes to medical related bills. Medicare is for young and the old. This program helps people who need it more then others. Medicaid is a health insurance plan for those who have low income and that are struggling to make ends meet. Yes it can be really expensive to have both or just one of these plans, but if we don’t have them. Those in need will be paying more then they can afford. I think the people who are given these programs should work, just to better themselves. Not everyone can work, but the others should try. If we took away these programs then they ones who need it will never get the things they need.
The United States has many programs also known as public goods. For example, medicaid and social security just to name a couple. With all of these programs is it enough? I believe for most people in poverty it is not enough to care for themselves and their families. There should be individual subsistence for people in poverty depending on their situation. For example, someone who cant find a job and has a family to care for should get about a year of financial assistance to give them time to find a job, or someone in college and caring for a child should get assistance until they can get a career and pay for themselves. I think medicaid and medicare are good programs for many individuals who need it. Medicare is an anti poverty program to help people who cant get health insurance make sure they have it. Medicaid is funded through deductions from individual’s payroll to go toward people who need that money more than the individual paying for it. If Medicaid was to be totally erased people who cant get a job or is having trouble keeping one wouldn’t be able to support their family and many might resort to crime and violence to support their family. A personal responsibility might make some bias points of view due to you paying your well deserved money to someone you don’t even know. I believe inter-generational social inequality can be fixed through funding. I do believe training and food stamps will help, but I think funding into things like schools will give people more of a chance to succeed in life.
Medicaid and Medicare are programs developed by the government to assist people in having access to healthcare. Medicare is an insurance program that is mostly used to take care of old people or people of any age who are disabled. Medicaid, on the other hand, was developed to help people of any age who simply don’t have health insurance. Health insurance is important. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to this. For some, it is because their employer does not offer the benefit and/or they are making too little to afford it on their own. For these people I think that Medicaid is an important service and one that they should be able to access. I see Medicare as an important service as well. When people are retired they may not have as much money and may not be able to afford insurance at a time when they are most likely to need it. If these programs were not available many people would not be able to get the proper healthcare that they need, which would lead to higher morbidity and mortality rates.
Personal responsibility narratives absolutely make it difficult to deal with social problems in our country. There is not one thing you can do where you will not face some kind of judgement. For homeless people that is a day to day struggle. Men, women and children sit on the streets every day begging for help, yet more often than not you hear people say, “Their actions lead them to where they are now.” Or “If they wanted a better life they would have one.” Or, the one I have personally heard most, “If they would get a job like the rest of us they wouldn’t be homeless.” I think people are uncomfortable in the presence of the homeless. People would rather judge our homeless population and talk down on them, instead of trying to understand that there are all types of situations that could have lead them to where they are. Thinking that all homeless people come from the same circumstances is like believing that all blondes are dumb. If Our country would refrain from placing blame on the homeless population and start focusing on trying to understand and help people in need, we may actually have a chance to do some good and get millions of people the help they need.
Poverty exists in every country in varying degrees, and is very unlikely to disappear any time soon. The United States is considered the wealthiest country in the world, and yet millions of us Americans live in poverty. Poverty is a pervasive human condition of being unable to obtain or provide a standard level of food, water and or shelter. In an amazing, free country such as America is, one should not be subjected to this definition of ‘poverty’. The government has social safety nets in order to try and combat this ever so growing rate of impoverished citizens, such as Minimum wage, social security, and negative income tax. These are all steps towards fixing poverty, but they need a lot of tampering with to get them just right. With social security, one may say that people will love the incentive to work a full time minimum wage job and quit to receive unemployment/benefits. I believe there should be stricter rules embedded with social security in order to prevent such from happening. If the government could find a way in which they could accomplish just that, I believe that poverty issues could be on the right track to being fixed. Obviously, poverty is not ANYWHERE near being fixed, but it’s a step forward. I believe we should fix poverty in the United States, giving our people a better name.
There are safety net programs already established in the United States. However, the poverty rate in our country continues to climb. The programs that are already in place are clearly not doing much to help combat poverty in one of the richest countries in the world. There is no reason that we cannot overhaul the current programs and implement new programs to improve the safety net. There are many good people in this country that have fallen into hard times and need some help. There should be programs that put unemployed Americans in a system that puts them in contact with local places that are looking to hire people. They should also turn abandoned schools into shelters for the extremely poor and homeless people of the area. Those shelters should be able to serve 3 square meals to the people staying in those shelters until they can get back on their feet. Poverty is a very complex issue and there is no one “right” answer to fix the climbing poverty rate but there is something that needs to be improved or implemented to help combat the issue in the U.S.
The United States of America can provide a social safety net for people by developing a program that is capable of assisting them if they are at or below the poverty line. This system would get them back on their feet for maybe a year or so, or enough time for them to maintain a stable job. People would not necessarily rely on this system, however it would ensure that everyone is well taken care of. Also, but putting some sort of time limit on the policy, the government would be able to keep more money and our economy would increase. I do believe that it is imperative that all Americans should be taken care of and that no one gets left behind. The work industry can be unforgiving, and can leave even the hardest working people stranded out on the streets.
The United States does have a social safety net but in my opinion I don’t think it’s very good. Yes, the US has programs, shelters and people out there to help poor people out there but the rates of poverty has increased overtime. Since the poverty rates increased overtime the social safety net is like “first come first serve”. It shouldn’t be first come first serve , it should be whoever is trying there best working hard that should be enough to get their foot in the door for food stamps, social secret and/or shelters and living. I do think we could do some work on making it more available and obtainable for those who need it. Of course they are people out there that do take advantage of the system but that’s where looking into their situation comes in. It’s not fair how sometimes the social safety system is strict and has certain standards and prevents people who actually need help, get the help they need. While people who don’t actually need it get all the “help” they can get. Without Medicare my generation and future would worry for our futures and retirement. The sick such as all generations would suffer. How would be able to afford our health care, dental care, and appoints in general. Those who need Medicaid are not beating the system or being treated better than middle class citizens because they are eligible for such a plan. Eligibility and requirements for such programs means they are barely making ends meet. Therefore, the social safety net has a lot to be worked on.
I don’t believe the U.S. should interfere in the economic standpoint of its citizens, unless a depression is imminent. A free market is set up to want to make money, and people need money to survive. One way for a business to make money is to be a better company in the public eye compared to its competition. An example of this is the modern Samsung commercial where they have an iPhone user throughout the years have experience troubles your average android user haven’t had to face in years. This shows that Samsung has had better tech than apple, and at a cheaper price. The idea of this competition can be applied to social problems too. If we have a free market without any government intervention, as the public begins to change their views on opposing races, businesses would just naturally begin to hire diverse employees because they do not want to seem “behind on times.” This idea of free competition is that then companies will also want to be the one to pay better wages so they get the better workers. In our society, we have a set minimum wage, so when looking for a low-income job, that’s what people expect and that’s what employers give. In a market that is freer than ours, McDonalds may pay 9 dollars and hour, while Wendy’s will payer 15 dollars per hour to attract high skilled, and possibly more able-bodied workers. The public would also see Wendy’s as a business that cares more about their employees than McDonalds.
I believe that all programs that either are currently set in place or are working to do so are great plans that would work in the ideal world. The issue with aids such as Medicare, Medicaid, and safety nets is that people can exploit these programs and take the money and help away from those who actually need it. A big issue with trying to set certain programs in place is that politicians and voters cannot see past this possibility of exploitation or they have actually seen it in action. Furthermore, this shows them the failure of the programs in place and makes them doubt all ideas of aid. If people have a bad mindset about aid for the poor then they will just see bad. People need to be able to see real results and benefits from these programs that we have in place and then perhaps there would be more support for them rather than against them. If we make a stronger effort to educate on this subject then we will probably see more change.
When it comes to a social safety net I am very partial for primarily because I believe that it is the reason some people in poverty other reason is I believe that some people genuinely need it because that just cant get out of poverty know matter what is in their power. I do think there should be a minimum subsistence because I have seen it first hand that if someone knows they will eventually be left with nothing they will find away so that doesn’t happen. For medicare and Medicaid I believe they are both good programs its just no one really know how to implement a good one that actually is effective. Inter-generational social inequality has gone on for a long time and from what I can see job training and food stamps are not enough. The government has done more harm to this subject over the past years then any good and should butt out.
The United States is one of the most powerful countries on this planet, we are also the most wasteful. As I drive to school and work each day I notice an abundance of homeless people posted on highway ramps pan handling for change. I once worked at a grocery store and we would throw away so much food that was perfectly fine. I always wondered why don’t we take this food to shelters or other places where it would appreciated by those of less fortune. I know that the U.S. has the means to end poverty but yet don’t offer many support systems. Most of the systems that benefit the homeless are usually funded by someone who was once in that position.
People shouldn’t rely on the government to fix their problems but they should offer more support to those going through finical struggle. Those of the 1% have some much money that they’ll never get a chance to spend it all, yet those of the middle and lower class have to suffer from raising taxes. Government support can only get you so far today. If we gotten rid of Medicaid that will only increase the amount of people who are currently struggling. Food stamps isn’t the answer, yes it helps those of need. My mother once received food stamps but the amount the government offered wasn’t enough to purchase groceries for the week. $58 was what she was receiving for the month. It was embarrassing to say the lease.
I am a strong believer that there should always be programs like medicare and medicaid. These programs are the ones that support medical coverage to the people who cant afford actual medical help when injured and are in need of medical attention. If these programs would be taken away all the low income humans, the disabled and even the elderly would never be provided the help thats needed for them cause of there financial state. When thinking about my generation, and not having these programs in tack, I would start to worry about my retirement plans. It’s scary to think about not having any coverage because without the proper care, someone could always be on the edge about getting injured. It’s smarter for the government to have these programs in place and have less Americans always be worried.
Medicare and food stamps should be available to anyone who needs it and meets the requirement of being in poverty. The only bad thing with these two things are it makes people think that they can live on these things when they really should not and they should go out and find an actual job of their own and support themselves. More jobs need to be available for people even if they are minimum wage jobs because everyone deserves an equal chance to get a job to support themselves. If we did not have medicare then people would be sick and dying left and right because they would have no way of getting the proper medicine they need to get better. Both of these things should be only temporary for people because they cannot live off of these two things. I do think the government should provide some job training because not everyone can afford to pay for college if they are living on food stamps and medicare. They should provide some training so people know what to do on an interview or how to work minimum wage jobs just to start somewhere. Nobody is going to get a good job if they cannot be impressive in an interview, so I think the government should help people be prepared for that. Food stamps cannot fix the poverty problem and are really only a starting point to get people on their feet and try to be better to support themselves.
It’s important that in this country, we have programs such as Medicare or Medicaid in order to help those who rely heavily on them. Not everyone is in the same position and therefore it is important that we recognize those who may not be as fortunate as others. We cannot progress as a country if we neglect the imperfections within it. Leaving those less fortunate to simply fend for themselves is cruel and unusual punishment. At the very least, we should be able to provide a decent net where basic needs such as shelter, food and clothing can be met to assure that all users will be tended to with their well being in mind. Not only this but we are not a strong country if the citizens are not educated. Welfare should not only provide basic needs but education as well to assure that citizens who rely on it have a chance to improve instead of falling behind.
So yes while we do have a safety net to help those in need, there are ways that it can be improved in order to better benefit the people who need to fall back on it.
If I was asked about hard work correlating with success whether poor or affluent, I would tell you that the two are indeed related. I grew up knowing many people who struggled financially, but given the opportunity to pursue higher education, they put hard work into their goal and were awarded success. While current systems in place, such as Welfare, are great in supporting those that require support on the physical aspect of poverty, I believe structures better suited for America would be ones that help people advance themselves academically. Thus, I believe a “safety net” of sorts, whether that be scholarships, grants, generous loans, or other governmental structures, would benefit the United States and other developed countries. Education and the pursuit of knowledge is the key to advancing the individual, and if we can find ways to help support those who cannot support earning an education by themselves, we can benefit from a smarter America. Even the small acts like scholarships can tremendously help an individual make decisions about his or her future. Of course, everyone has a different situation, and may require the help of social safety nets in order to get to the point of higher education, so we should continue to support those structures as well.
In my opinion, I believe every developed country should offer a social safety net program. The United States has a great social safety net program, when compared to other countries. Personally, a few friends of mine are on a safety net program, such as welfare, food stamps and Medicaid. Governments offering programs like Medicaid and Medicare are fantastic resources. These programs aid families and the elderly in need that are unable to afford medical bills on their own. If the government were to abolish medicaid, families with major health concerns would be forced to endure high medical bills. Not only will poverty-stricken families be affected, but this will affect all of America as well, causing a chain reaction. Less Americans will have to pay taxes and or the government will profit from removing medicaid. Most “personal responsibility” narratives are part of the wealthy class, than compared to the middle or lower class level. With that being said, the wealthy class don’t endure or have first hand experience of what it’s like to live at a lower class life, making it difficult for them to make laws that pertain to welfare. Social Inequality is a very controversial and major conflict throughout our country today. Unfortunately, there is no way to fix inequality but, key resources such as food stamps and welfare help poverty-stricken families in need of help.
One statistic that stood out to me in the article would be that 60% of Americans say that people are poor because they don’t work hard enough, and that they are lazy. This statistic is backed by uneducated people who don’t know enough about why poverty is a thing, and what causes people to be poor. The United Sates should provide a social safety net, this is true because life is unpredictable, and a social safety net would be a good decision to help citizens incase things happen. Along with this, a social safety net should have certain requirements for someone to qualify for, which would require government to sort out what is a qualifier vs someone who wouldn’t qualify. Government training and other things that help people quality for jobs is a good start, but there is more that is needed to be done. More food stamps and other things could be distributed to people that qualify for them, because everyone deserved to have food on their table instead of having little to nothing. There should be more things being done to help people that have trouble staying ‘above water’ when it comes to financial issues. Helping people get their medical bills paid, or even decreasing the cost of them could also help a lot of people escape poverty because of the high cost of the medical bills. This may be hard because in the article it stated that most Americans hate welfare, but if it helps the greater good, the vast majority could agree upon it.
I believe the Medicaid and Medicare programs are great ways to help those in need of financial support when it comes to medical related bills. Medicare being for the elder and young people with disabilities and some other circumstances, is a program helping those who, in some ways, need it more than others. Medicaid being a health insurance plan for those who fall into the low-income family category can be a huge help for families with young kids that are struggling to make ends meet. Even though it can become very expensive to have either of the plans, without it those in need could be paying more than they can afford for medical bills and have the potential of losing their belongings to pay the bills. Being that there are many people who can’t necessarily afford to have a home let alone insurance, there should be a minimal individual subsistence for them. Even though the people will be given financial support, I would still like to see them work to better themselves. Not everyone is willing to work for things they want, leaving some paying for their things for someone who is not trying to help themselves. I would like to see an effort to help those who are in need by giving them some type of income, but I would also like to see them work to help themselves to potentially help someone who falls into the same situation.
I believe that every country should have a safety net program. Its sad that people think that we shouldn’t help people that live in poverty. Even though some people may get comfortable with certain systems such as welfare or food stamps, the U.S should still try to get rid of poverty. I think that the country should try to create more jobs for people as well as lowering the requirements on certain jobs so that people who many not have any education can at least get a low-income job. I think that medicaid and medicare are very helpful to people that have low income because everyone needs healthcare, and everyone cannot pay for health care no matter what age you are. I think that if were to get rid of these programs a lot of people would die or be seriously ill. People would also be very upset if they get rid of these programs as well.
The United States does have a safety net and i feel that it is making a big difference in society today. People could argue that if its making such a big deal in society then why are so many people in poverty. The way I look at this is that the safety net is not put out there to give people more money so they don’t become poor its to help them and guide them away from being poor. I think of it as just a thing to help you in a time of need. It,s just there to help those people in time of need until they can dust themselves off and climb out of those hard times. So, overall I feel as if the safety net is doing a great job how it is now and we do not need to improve it. This is just a helper not a answer to the problem.
Although the United States currently has a safety net program, I believe that we should implement a system and or program that can allow for people who can’t afford to sustain or live on their own a baseline. A program that gets them on their feet, and I don’t mean just getting them in touch with someone, but legitimately having a set time frame and plan to get them a job and house or apartment. The issue seems to be that everything is handed to them. Having a structured outline of job hunting and house searching, while giving the individual some responsibility, it negates them to get comfortable. Giving them self-worth and something to look forward to and a timeline, they’ll be more willing and eager to get back up on their feet.
I believe that every country, including the United States, needs a social safety net. While the United States does have one, I think it can definitely be improved. If some people believe that the United States’ safety net is too easily made into a hammock-meaning people become comfortable with their situation and make no effort to bounce back-then the government should make more of an effort to encourage people to leave. It should provide basic needs: clothing, means to provide shelter for themselves and their family, access to healthcare, health items, drinking water, and other things they may need, but there are some issues that I think need to be fixed in order to encourage people to get out. I think that, based on the individual case, there should be a time limit. In order to keep people from just collecting welfare checks their entire lives, each family should only have access to help for a certain amount of time. I think that people on welfare should be required to receive some kind of free education. Each person on welfare should be required to go back for their GED, their bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, or a technical degree at a trade school. In essence, some way of increasing the number of jobs available to them. This would not apply to those on welfare for an injury of course. In order to keep people on welfare for spending money on things that are not necessities, welfare checks should be the bare minimum, with basic needs being sent directly to them instead of relying on them being responsible enough to buy what they need rather than what they want. Finally, I believe that a healthy lifestyle should be more encouraged, and therefore people on welfare should have access to healthier foods. Fast food restaurants sell entire meals for the same price as a few vegetables from a grocery store. The safety net should provide better access to healthier foods in order to ensure that those on welfare are healthy enough to re-enter the workforce, instead of worsening their health problems while on welfare, making it more difficult for them to get off of welfare.
Medicaid is a federal and state program that covers medical care for certain people (that fit between the category) with low incomes. I firmly believe that if the National Government would “get rid” of Medicaid and Medicare, there would be minimal to no efforts to help those in need. I stand by my thoughts and believe that any American struggling should be able to have benefits that can help them and there family’s strive to get back to work, or help those get back on there feet. At the same time, I cant express enough, people have to work for what they want. Nothing is ever free, someone is always paying for it. In this case, its us everyday tax payers. To me, once again “getting rid” of there benefits puts unneeded thoughts in the minds of those that are in desperate need of these benefits. The government officials that are in the process of provoking these benefits, most likely never lived the life many of these people are despairingly trying to live. I understand completely that they work and have higher education, but some people are not as fortunate, and there family’s van not afford post secondary education the way other family’s can.
On the other hand, if Medicare is helping those in need, you also have to work to sustain these benefits. Taking away tax money from wealthy Americans, or those trying to work for what they also desperately need is not right. Temporally giving the help to the people that are in need I believe makes more sense. If you or a elderly person may not work, I also understand those circumstances.
In conclusion, I believe that taking away these benefits would be harmful to those Americans in need. I stand by Medicaid, because from the research I have come across, it is for those working with low incomes. If you are not psychically not able to obtain a job that pays more than minimum wage, that may be your own fault, and is not the fault of those Americans paying for your insurance. As that is said, that goes for Medicare, I agree with how they have to work for there insurance benefits.
Because of the lack of jobs in this country it’s important that there are systems in place for those that are not making enough money. Systems like Medicare and Medicaid are extremely helpful in our society. In the United States, people with low incomes or disabilities rely heavily on these programs. However, it is important that the people that are given this aid are not abusing it. Having a “safety net” in place is no excuse to be lazy. The purpose of these “safety nets” is to help people recover, not to provide for them forever. The systems should only provide what a person really needs, nothing more. That being said, getting rid of these systems completely would be a big mistake. The people that previously relied on these systems to help them would continue to suffer financially with almost no chance to bounce back. Many of these people are suffering because of reasons out of their control and should not be left to fend for themselves.
Personally, I believe that programs like Medicare and Medicaid are great ways to make sure that everyone has a right to proper healthcare. Growing up on programs like these because my mother has a disability may have something to do with my perspective. With new ideas floating around of repealing this genuinely effective system is quite confusing and concerning. Many people rely on systems like these for themselves and their children, and it is not out of laziness. Why take away a working healthcare system that is bettering society with minimal harm to others. Welfare, like the article states, is a safety net that people bounce back from. When someone is in a rough spot in life, they more then likely need a boost back into the field. Jobs aren’t easily available right now, and this idea of a safety net is crucial. Minimum wage jobs do not cover all the bills and expenses.
I think the U.S does a lot to aid other countries and has a important responsibility to do so because they have such a strong economy and wealth compared to the other country. I also think the United States idea of food stamps would be a good idea but I don’t feel it would be easy implement new safety nets. I think medicare and medicaid are also good programs but there are still people who find it expensive to afford health insurance unlike other countries like England for example and the NHS providing free health insurance to the nation. This realistically is much harder to pull off in America because of population but is a goal that could be set by the government.
I think that the United States is definitely one of the most affluent countries and that our country should do everything that they can to help lesser developed countries. It is the right thing to do to provide whatever aid possible but at the same time the United States is in a lot of debt so it becomes a question of how much should the U.S. should provide and when it becomes necessary. I think that it is hard to look at a minimum for all people that fall under economic stress because I think sometimes it should be based on the individual. Some people work so hard and still cannot get out of the cycle of poverty that they have fallen into whether they were born into a poor family or they have lost their jobs but some people never even try to get themselves out of their poverty because they depend on government help. I do believe in programs like Medicare and Medicaid because health care should be available to everyone that needs it but it is hard to say where this money should come from and how much should be covered by the government when they don’t have enough money to spend on it. I think that it is so hard to get out of the cycle of poverty in the situations where it is intergenerational poverty and programs like job training and food stamps will help but I don’t know if they will fix the problem necessarily and I don’t know to fix the problem but I think it is programs like these that bring us closer to fixing poverty.
From the time I was little, my mom would always tell me that the people on the street were there because of things they couldn’t control- mental illness, a record, no family or friends, couldn’t get hired, etc., so it always came as a shock to me that people genuinely believe that these people are lazy and just not working hard enough. I know that Medicare and Medicaid are extremely helpful but imperfect systems, but they are necessary. Taking away these programs would leave many people entirely unable to have access to doctors and medicines.
While I believe that there is definitely a personal responsibility factor in being above the poverty line, there are plenty of impoverished people that work one or more full-time jobs and still cannot afford housing and food. I think that we definitely need to find a way to help these people because they are working as hard as possible and still can’t afford necessities. That goes against everything we believe as a country. We tell people that if you work hard, you’ll be successful, so why do we allow these people to fall victim to our system? I just don’t understand how someone can call parents working multiple jobs and trying to raise kids “lazy” and undeserving of our help.
To me programs like Medicare and Medicaid seem to be a good solution to people who are not able to afford insurance and health care coverage. I was raised in England for the first half of my life and I was brought up on the National Healthcare system also known as NHS. This system provides low cost to free healthcare to all legal residents of the United Kingdom. The fees for the program are in everyone’s taxes and this helps many less privileged people in the UK have access to quality medical services when it is necessary. It covers minor health problems, consultations, to emergency services. The program works well for Great Britain so when I see programs like Obamacare potentially being repealed I get confused. Free or low-cost healthcare is beneficial and many countries have programs like this to help those who have less privilege. People in power want to repeal the plan but have no proposed plan to replace it other than saying the replacement will be better and more efficient.
The argument of “personal responsibility” I think makes dealing with issues like this harder. Some people see those in need as needing help from a structural system working against them while others think of the “American Dream” and just working hard can get a person out of a bad situation. A person’s will power can only get them so far, some openings for opportunity need to be provided, so people can get out of bad situations. There are also many circumstances of people who are good people that got caught up in wrong crowds putting them into a bad place. People have been charged with minor convictions and because of that had a hard time acquiring jobs or doing work that would help them out of a poverty ridden or close to poverty level life.
Everyone is still on Welfare:
Once again new research has been collected from experts because of the amount of ignorance about welfare. Its repugnant people have to elaborate on why welfare isn’t just for poor people. Where did the humanity in Americans disappear to? Its shameful majority of people wouldn’t want to help the less fortunate. Welfare gives aid to individuals who lost their jobs, have disabilities, and fund education. The only way for more people to accept welfare is to gain more knowledge of who it serves. I agree that the government can’t only help one class of people, which is why at one point in time, I too didn’t agree with welfare. But welfare has three categories social, fiscal, and occupational welfare, all of which offers different aid to those in need.
Poor People Work
It was interesting discovering between the ages of 18- 64, 35% of the poor are ineligible to work. I thought it would a grander percentage of people unable to work because of the commercials about veterans and retired patron unable to support their selves. 65% of people in the United States needing jobs is a great deal, so I now can understand why Americans engage politicians, recently presidential candidates, about creating more jobs.
Of the people working, 44.3% of Americans are working full time. Less than 50% are working full time and of those jobs I can bet they are not make a desirable amount. People can’t make a living being full time at Target and Starbucks, when they are only paying employees nine dollars an hour.
As I was reading this article, I came across something that really struck my attention. “Poverty, consequently, rather than being seen as a “technical” problem that might be fixed is often seen as a moral failing: it is the poor themselves that are to be blamed.” When this article says, “it is the poor themselves that are to be blamed”, I completely disagree with that statement. Some of these people living in poverty did not even have that choice to be where they are, of course some people might have made some wrong decisions that might have put them where they are. Biological Poverty in this article is described as people who are unable to sustain themselves with food, and shelter and are risking their lives because of it. These people going through this poverty are not to be blamed, and an example would be the people of Hunts Point. Some of these people living in poverty such as the terrible housing are not to be blamed. These were just years of apartments that were never renovated or even taken cared of. If you continue the article is says that only 29 percent of people believe that Americans live in poverty by factors beyond their control compared to 60 percent.
Developed countries compared with developing ones, should have a social safety net. Developing countries look toward developed countries as models for their own countries plans. If a social safety net has not come about within a developed country such as the United States, then developing countries would not enact any protection from poverty. I think a social safety net with fair regulations and limits would work in the United States. The social safety net should never represent a goal for people but rather as a backup plan if everything starts to crumble. The social safety net should work as a booster, like a canon. It should fire you back into a more affluent lifestyle. The social safety net would work so that the more you put in the more you will receive, to provide an incentive to get out. A minimum line of assistance would always remain throughout even if one does not put a lot effort in. The incentive would provide a bonus assistance for those who prove they want to get out. They could do this by working harder to get jobs or doing some type of civil work. When it comes to personal responsibility, I believe in half and half method. You give half, and the government should give the other half. This would really work well with the incentive bonus. Personal responsibility and the amount of government assistance impact one’s path. I do think on some level that one has to take action, but they should not take this action alone. The government should and ought to help those who want to get out of poverty. Government must find ways to relocate funds from unnecessary programs that could help diminish poverty levels.
After reading this article I think that it is amazing how much European’s views differ from American’s. Its crazy to see how our opinions of the poor are so different than the way the majority of Europe views it in a sense that we just say that they are “lazy” when others see it in a completely different way. I also think that it is amazing that we criticize a category that almost 11% of Americans fall into at some point in their lives. Looking at the charts, you can see that these programs assist Americans and help the majority of them get back on their feet somewhat quickly with few exceptions, but we seem to take those few exceptions and focus on them and then in turn project our negative views on the entire system.
While it is impossible to completely “fix” or eliminate poverty, it is certainly possible to reduce it’s impact across those at the lower levels of a society. Absolutely, the United States needs a safety net, there is no alternative. I do feel like these safety net programs, especially those such as social security, should be strengthened in order to prolong their existence indefinitely. In terms of programs like medicare and medicaid, I think not only should we fund these programs, but we should push even further, to where we are able to provide single-payer healthcare, or at least some sort of a public option. This type of program, guaranteeing healthcare for all citizens, would be enormous for combatting poverty, as it would completely eliminate one of the largest concerns for those living in poverty; worrying about their health, as most cannot afford to presently. In terms of the personal responsibility narrative, this is hands down the largest factor standing in the way of policy for this issue, even more so than politicians who are opposed to such legislation. This is because the narrative controls the reality. It is much easier for most people, who have never experienced true poverty, to simply dismiss it as an act of laziness, as opposed to structural immobility. And this is the problem, because even with public support, it would be difficult to actually pass legislation benefitting impoverished people, without it, it’s impossible. In terms of inter-generational social inequality, I feel that food stamps and job training is certainly a good start. In addition to the universal healthcare I proposed earlier, this takes care of the three main issues of poverty, health, hungry, and no income. From there, I am not too certain, but it is the minimum baseline which we should be providing at this point.
The idea of the American Dream is no longer a reality and it is more and more difficult to travel out of your class. Working hard and determination does not mean that you will be successful. Some American consider other people to be “lazy” because this mind set lives in some today. However, it is proved to be extremely difficult to climb into a different class. As mentioned in class and the article “class travelers” are rare. The idea that people on welfare are lazy and do not work hard is untrue. Researchers show that welfare is used for people to get back on their feet, few are “welfare dependent”. The ones making these accusations against welfare are the ones in the middle class. If people are receiving food stamps and are on welfare I do not see how giving those without nourishment to live is harmful to anyone. Also mentioned in the article, whites are more likely to fall into the lucky 1% than nonwhites. It would be interesting to see if this is because there is unequal pay between races. The idea that poverty is just a part of life does not have to be a way Americans think. To answer the question, “should we fix poverty?” the answer is yes. Because the United States has the wealth, nobody should be at risk for lack of food.
Poverty is a very serious problem that continues to face our country today as numbers of those affected increases. I find it interesting how the article comments on how obesity is a more common problem for those living in poverty rather than starving. However, this consistency makes sense because the cheapest food to purchase to conserve the most food stamps would be processed unhealthy food. The issue of “fixing” poverty is a tough one to tackle because it’s virtually impossible to completely rid of it. There will always be an income gap in a capitalist government system, so some will always be much ahead of others. That being said, there are various ways to lessen the stress put on those who are less fortunate.
Medicare and Medicaid are two very similar programs that work to alleviate the pain felt day to day by this economic class. Medicaid provides free or excessively reduced health care and benefits to the poor and disabled, and Medicare provides these benefits for the elderly. I agree with the focus of these programs because in my opinion, everyone should be entitled to receiving the medical care they need to stay healthy and live the longest life possible.
Of course we need to fix poverty, but I am sure that that is a rhetorical question. There are many ways to help the situations of the poor, but there is no way that there will never be some poverty. Poverty will always exist, but things like: welfare, charities, and shelters are some of the things that can alleviate the burden of poverty. One of the ways the government can help the poor that I believe is extremely overlooked is education reform. It is nearly impossible to get by these days without a proper education. If we can make education in poor areas as good as education is in rich areas, I believe this would greatly reduce the number of poor people by granting them a life with much more opportunity. Without education, there is no opportunity.
Every human needs food, clothing, and shelter. No one should lack any of these, yet millions across the globe do. So of course we should “fix” poverty. But I keep “fix” in quotations for a reason. I am a firm believer that poverty can’t be fixed as long as currency exists. The two walk hand in hand. In America, we think welfare and job training can be enough, and while it does work for some, it does not work for all. People are still lacking in food, clothing, shelter, or all three. So it leaves me wondering, why are we still using money if it is causing so much pain and suffering for so many people? This may come of as naive, but I’m not an idiot. I just think the fact that we rely on rectangular pieces of cloth to survive is ridiculous. It’s pretty obvious to me that we’re too far gone at this point, and it’ll only get worse. And since our world leaders haven’t found a way to “fix” poverty or simply don’t want to because it’ll cut into their pockets, poverty will continue to plague our society. Humans have necessities, but some can’t have those necessities because they don’t have enough money. Money is prohibiting them from living the only lives they’ll ever have. It is every bit as absurd as it sounds.
“In this world there is room for everyone, and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls.”
-from Charlie Chaplin’s 1940 film “The Great Dictator”
What surprised me during this reading were all the statistics. For example, during the study that was conducted about laziness I was alarmed that 29% of Americans are in poverty due to uncontrollable factors. Furthermore, I think that in an optimal world the United States should have the ability to cover all those in need but realistically with such a high population it would be impractical. I definitely think that poverty needs to be fixed. But there isn’t that many ways to the change the system. I am not that educated in this field so the only thing that I could think of that could possibly decrease poverty in an increase in minimum wage. Although, this could decrease poverty temporarily if the data says that poverty is uncontrollable what can be done?
I don’t know if we can fix the persistent generational social inequality. I’m not saying that there is no hope I am rather implying that the government can help solve these issues but never completely dissolve or fix them. For instance, many poor people do have jobs as seen in the article “Poor people work”, this means that poor people are not lazy and they do care about their economic situation.
Thus, the problem is escaping poverty. Poor people do not have access to the same jobs, money, and stability as the middle to upper class. Therefore, I believe that job training and food stamps do help better the poor’s financial situation but that is not enough. I think that when making decisions on policies that effect welfare the policy makers must take into account that in order for the poor to climb the social ladder they need a way out.
With that in mind, as we talked about in class, being a class traveler isn’t easy. However, I think that if the government gave more funding to schools in poorer neighborhoods and scholarships to poor students looking to attend college there would be less of a gap. I know that there are a lot of factors such as home life, whether or not the child has a job, parent’s involvement in a child’s life, and the importance of education in the household that can effect a child’s education. I understand these factors and know that we cannot change the home lives of these children but at least they can have a shot at escaping poverty if given the chance. Therefore, focusing on the children is one step in the right direction for changing the effects of generational social inequality.
I believe the “the personal responsibility” narrative at the policy level is especially dangerous considering most of the people making policies are rich White males who believe this narrative to be true. If this is the general myth policy makers believe, then they won’t do anything to help those living in poverty. Furthermore, many of these policy makers would like to end some social welfare programs entirely. Currently, I think this general attitude amongst policy makers is changing. This could be attributed to the fact that the general make up of our government is changing. With the addition of more women and people of color, there seems to be a wider range of voices being accounted for. But, representation for this groups is still in the minority within the government so there isn’t a dramatic change in this attitude. This reminds me of Zoe Leonard’s poem, “I Want a Dyke for President.” She is illuminating the fact that in order to enact change and social equality, we must have policy makers who understand and are aware of these social problems. She wrote the poem in the 80s and the themes within it are still eeriely relevant. Here is a video of Mykki Bianco reciting the poem for anyone who cares to listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DgawQdSlQ
In an ideal world, our country would have enough funds to support those who are in need of economic stress. I personally have no idea how a developed country like the United States should provide for a social safety net. I personally wasn’t aware of how many individuals temporarily use the safety net, and who experience times of economic stress. I knew this was a normal family phenomenon, but I didn’t realize how many people used the “safety net” in our country during these times.
I am not extremely educated on the economic and business related aspects of our country, so I tend to not speak about them often. I have heard many different people state their opinions on Medicaid and Medicare ranging from how great they are, to how unnecessary and harmful they are to certain people in our society. I do, however, know that “personal responsibility” narratives are a huge issue in our country. Everyone seems to believe that we all start out on an equal playing field, and that just a little hard work and dedication can save you and put you in the middle class. However, this is an extremely skewed idea of our nation, and especially of our poor members of society as well as those who didn’t have many options to move from the places where they were born etc. This is also the notion of equity vs. equality that many people in our society don’t seem to understand. I think that because so many policy makers don’t experience this safety net often or at all, they don’t take into account the experiences of others when dealing with the policies of our country.
The United States gives people a false representation of what life is like once a person arrives here. Even though people may be leaving bad situations to come to America, America isn’t what it is cracked up to be. America is the place where people come to make their dreams come true. Those dreams to be rich and famous are mostly unobtainable. There is this idea that with hard work anyone could become apart of the middle class. When we think of achieving middle class this requires families to have two working parents who have jobs that pay more than minimum wage. There aren’t many families like this in our society today. There is notion that people who are lower-class are only there because they are lazy. I don’t believe it is fair to say that everyone who is poor is poor because they’re lazy. Our government doesn’t give enough aid to those who are lower-class to provide them a better life. You can see what I mean when you go into any state and see the “good” parts of the city vs. the “bad” parts. Obviously, the “bad” parts are equated with the cities minorities, while the “good” parts are white neighborhoods. Our economic system doesn’t allow for many people to move through socio-economic classes, it takes years and generations of families to build up enough money to go from lower-class to upperclass. The reality of it all is that our economic system is made to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
We as a society need to fix poverty. You cannot drive through a major city without seeing at least three people experiencing homelessness on the way. I believe it truly is a problem that needs to be addressed. The issue that arises when trying to “fix” the problem is how? Many people would just say raise the minimum wage and increase the welfare benefits. This would be true and would help alleviate some of the problems but not all of them. By raising the minimum wage and increasing social welfare benefits, taxes will be raised and business will be forced to spend more. This thought is frustrating so many Americans. Another issue that Americans face when trying to fix poverty is the idea of the American dream. The American dream means people can raise themselves up in society by working hard. They can do it on their own if they just work hard. This idea just does not work anymore. There are a lot of external factors that also contribute to the breakdown of the American dream. Will we ever be able to fix poverty? I am not sure but we as a country have a duty to attempt to alleviate the problem.
Inter-generational social inequality is a tough problem to fix. As we have said in class and as this article illustrates, it is very difficult for someone to break through the social class they have been born into. While I believe that food stamps and job training can benefit a person I do not think it will help them enough to break through the economic class. A person would need to put a lot of his or her own time into studying hard for school and have a whole lot of luck to break through. Even with both of these they still may not make it. Unfortunately in this world there is no equation that says if you do x, y and z then you will eliminate poverty or you will move out of the poverty line. With the programs that have put into place, like food stamps and job training, we are moving forward to helping those that are in this economic class but not solving the problem.
There are endless myths around welfare and major misconceptions around poverty. The “welfare queen” was attached to women of color and said to be a misused and abused system deeming it to be unnecessary. As you stated in a recent post, there are many people that work full time and STILL qualify for publilc assistance, but in addtion to that, many people make a little over the poverty line and the disqualifies them public assistance and leaves them in a really tough spot. That goes back to the issue of raising minimum wage so the eventual burden of living is not pinned on everyone else in the household which would most likely include children or young teens. (One example is youth working in tobacco fields which is extremely toxic and usually a last resort for extra income.)
People who are born into money or acquire a large amount of money dont take into consideration their personal safety net compared to a poor person’s personal safety net. It is obvious that if many people were “self sufficient” they wouldnt consider public assistance, but that is not the case.
While some people are at fault for abusing the system and this has led to tigher regulations, it also makes it more difficult for those who actually need it and have to go through a longer process to obtain needed public assistance.
Welfare Rights Initiative which is based in Hunter College works to assist students with their public assistance cases. For more than a decade they have fought for students to have class credits count as work hours as well as homework hours. While that policy is finally being implemented, it took many years and with a focus on education. I believe tha students should not have to choose between public assistance and an education, but it also shouldn’t be shocking that more education increases one’s chances of being lifted out of poverty.
Those who blame the individual for being in poverty fail to recognize that there are external factors that influence a person’s situation. It becomes difficult to push to strengthen the social safety net when the widely perceived notion of those in poverty are painted as “lazy” and not hard working. This image feeds the idea that it is the individual’s fault and that with hard work one can get out of poverty. Often times a person is stuck in the cycle of poverty. (They don’t have enough money -> they can’t get a quality education -> they can’t get a good job and so it repeats.) I think it’s important for there to exist a strong social safety net to help those in poverty to survive (though it should do more than help them to just survive). I think that more should be done (additional programs or training) to provide those in poverty with more opportunity; it would help them get out of their situation instead of keeping them there.
We should “fix” poverty, but can we? Personal responsibility narratives do make it difficult to deal with the issues of poverty and how wealth is distributed at the policy level because policies can only be written in black and white and are made for the “average”, but there are so many outliers and factors in an individual’s life that giving people more money or more benefits wont even help to begin to eradicate the poverty problem we face in America. Not everyone that is suffering in poverty was always at that place and how they got there may not be the same as the next person. So essentially, its like how can we stop a leak if we don’t know where the water is coming from? I feel that the social inequality that is apparent in American is so embedded in the “American Dream” mentality that job training, food stamps and other social welfare benefits will never enough to “fix” social inequality and poverty; because at the end of the day social inequality and poverty is more than a money thing. Even if everyone had the same amount of money and the same benefits and were able to live “comfortably” there will always be something that some people have that others only wish they could obtain because that’s America for you.
There are countless of arguments on how our money is being distributed. There are arguments surrounding the raise in minimum wage and on welfare and health insurance. If our living cost continuously increases and the pay rate stays stagnant, what are people to do when they become ill. People now struggle with their low income as it is now, this is why health insurance is so vital. How is one expected to pay rent and other necessities and still have enough money to pay for health care. When it comes to money, we live in a very selfish society, however, when we see people in pain and we tend to feel sorry for them and wonder how we could help -this is the irony in America.
I think Americans are funny people; we don’t want to raise minimum wage, we don’t want to offer welfare because it’s our hard earned tax money, and we don’t want homeless people lining our streets. I believe their is some severe lack of education on how welfare for work, who benefits, and what really is a welfare benefit. People has tons of racists misconceptions because they do not actual understand the reality of how their tax money is divided and who really is on welfare. If we don’t want to raise minimum wage, and we don’t want to allow our tax money to go towards welfare benefits, then we better embrace the large amout of poverty that will be added to an already unacceptable large population, we better prepare ourselves to take care of elderly parents, and young adults who cant afford to take care of themselves regardless of their education level. I could be wrong, but I feel American’s are a large amount of people with plenty of opportunity to educate themselves, but refuse to take the time to really understand their government and their policies. It is just so much easier to label the poor as the bad guys than it is to stand up for them, or to take the time to understand what is actually happening.
On various accounts, the different types of public assistance, like housing, food stamps or Medicare, should be limited for people who can not afford it and actually are in need of it. However I believe that is has affected many people in a negative way, mainly involving a higher education. I feel like the less fortunate is labeled as the less fortunate because they take advantage of receiving all these free benefits; and forget about the hard work and responsibility it takes by striving for it on their own. I believe in order to prevent less people being “stay at home parent/guardians, they should have more well paid available jobs for the less privileged, instead of giving away public assistance for those who are to lazy to work for there benefits, they should be working if they are in a healthy way of living. Without these programs there would be a foremost increase on the financial burden of the elderly, disabled, and low income households. For example these programs make up for very high medical fee for those who need coverage the most. However for just the individuals who truly are readable and fill the circumstances of tumbling to carry on a stable live.
When it comes to medicare and food stamps, it is an essential thing for people who can not afford it. But I believe that is has slow down the people to get a better life. They become to comfortable getting all this that they forget about the hard work and responsibility of getting things on their own. And I believe that in order to fix the economy there has to be more jobs in order for people to get their own money and take action of their own life. It is a starting point but it shouldn’t be a whole life thing.
I believe there is a need for programs such as medicaid and medicare. Both programs provide medical coverage to individuals who can not afford to cover medical services they may need at some point. Without these programs there would be a major increase on the financial burden of the elderly, disabled, and low income households. These programs offset extremely high medical cost for those who need coverage the most. Without these programs in place it would nearly impossible for any of the groups listed to find medical coverage. Without medical coverage those in need would either be forced to live with dangerous health conditions, find resolve in another country, or if a situation is extreme enough they may die. For sure, without medicare my generation and the next would need to be worried for our futures and retirement plans. The elderly would perish without medicare plans set in their favor. How would they afford their doctor visits, operations, and prescriptions? Those who need medicaid are not beating the system or being treated better than middle class citizens because they are eligible for such a plan. The fact that they are eligible for such a program means they are barely making ends meet as it is and to not have health coverage, when they may need it the most living in depreciated conditions would be difficult.
I think the United Sates’ ideas of food stamps and unemployment are a good idea for programs to help people in these times of need. I do think we could do some work on making it more available and obtainable for those who need it. Unemployment is a decent safety net for those who lose their job, although there are certain rules about collecting which does make it harder for people to be supported. I can’t really imagine the United States creating other safety nets. One idea could be to let people maybe deplete their share of social security that they have paid into it. Although this will just lead to even more of a problem when it comes time to retire they will have less money to collect from social security then. I would like to think that the United States is developed enough to be able to provide people with minimum levels of individual subsistence but again I do not see this happening. Instead I could see them creating a stimulus package of some sort that maybe will create jobs, or save more jobs from being cut. I can’t see other form of helping people stay with minimum levels of subsistence in an economic crisis because we tend to like to blame the individuals for being where they are rather than looking at the bigger picture. Medicaid is important and I would like to say it is an advancement but for the United States we seem to be behind the ball in this development, whereas other countries have free healthcare from the point of birth or pay people to buy health insurance from private companies. All in all it is a good program because it helps supply people with health insurance that would otherwise have trouble affording it. I think Medicare is extremely important because it helps provide medicine for the elderly. Without this program we would probably see a drop in our life expectancy because people are going to run out of money and not be able to afford health insurance or medicine out of pocket.