 |
| "Gin Lane" (1851) by William Hogarth |
Do you agree that further evidence claim can be found in Federal legislation that allows "states to require that recipients pee in a cup for drug tests; sign forms pledging that they [won't] conceive children while receiving benefits; do volunteer work to 'give back' to the society that they [are] supposedly mooching off; have their personal information entered into databases accessed by cops; have their Social Security numbers checked against criminal records" (128)?
Or would you say that these reforms provide safeguards against those who might otherwise manipulate the system and give a bad name to the more deserving poor?
I believe these reforms would help to safeguard the system, but at the same time, they would also keep a lot of children from having food. As the daughter of an addict, and a member of a community filled with them, not much else goes through their minds except drugs or alcohol. They do not work, more often than not, so they have no source of income, most have innocent, hungry, children, who need that federal assistance. While I see the struggles of the child of an addict, I also see childless addicts, taking money from the government while they continue their habit, harming themselves and others. Then there are those who have children solely to draw a check, then they trade their food stamps for drugs and their children only eat at school if they attend school at all. I believe if these implications were made in my community, it would prevent the birth of unwanted and unloved children, help to push people to get back on their feet, and more money would be available to those who desperately need it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky question. On one hand, you have people that are actually struggling to make ends meet financially and would need the income. However, there are people that would also abuse the system and take advantage of it, spending the money and food stamps on unneeded things. I do believe there should be several requirements to qualify for the assistance, such as background checks and a record showing what the money was used on and if it is being used accordingly. Many people are in desperate need of help, and we should try our best to help our community out
ReplyDeleteI too have struggled with this question. It is very important that those who are in need get help to make it through life. But it is hard to wonder whether or not some of the money that people spend is being used in the most effective way. It can be frustrating to think that people are taking welfare when they do not really need it. I would rather only those who actually need welfare apply for it and that the other tax money be redirected to other government programs.
DeleteThere must be some sort of regulations to decipher between those that actually need finichial help and those that are taking advantage. Our society should not help full grown adults who are not willing to help their self. For example, one factor that hurts individuals, children, and our society as a whole is drug abuse. Drugs are a big cause of poverty; therefore, drug testing is one thing that66 should be included in this reform. Some of those regulations are a bit degrading. Just because a person needs help does not mean they should be told to not reproduce. These people are not mooches because what they are taking now they can be giving back later. My heart hurts for the children, like the author, who have to suffer from the repercussions of their parents actions. I think children should be taken care of with no questions asked.
ReplyDelete-Kiley Watkins
With the state requiring “that recipients pee in a cup for drug tests...” and “have their social security numbers checked against criminals records.” (128) they are discriminating against those that need the welfare system the most. Drug addictions are not something easy to recover from, and those that suffer from them are more likely to need help, as well as past criminals who are trying to return to society, but cannot because of the choices in their past. The outlook that people on welfare abuse the system adds to the criminalization of poverty. Because they need help, they must be lazy and not willing to work, thus they are taking advantage of the system. Poverty exists in many different forms, and it is rarely because someone is just lazy.
ReplyDeleteI understand that people need to provide for themselves and their own families, but sometimes the jobs they have don’t present enough payment. For example, Smarsh’s mother, and both her grandmother’s worked several jobs while their husbands worked the land and worked small jobs on the side and they still struggled to make ends meet. Most underprivileged people Smarsh knew worked on farms from before sunrise to after sunset, disproving that poor people are lazy. Throughout history, hard working, blue collared workers are looked down upon for simply not having money. With this, it becomes harder to gain the respect needed to rise in the social hierarchy.
The posed question is a very tough situation. The American government was stuck in between a rock and hard place. The desired goal of keeping people clean from drugs in order to get their welfare as well as an agreement to not have kids so that more people are not taking money from tax payers. While the idea looks good on paper to have these welfare recipients to stay away from drugs often times these people are so caught up in their addiction that they need help on a greater scale. To keep these individuals from receiving their welfare because of a drug addiction is also a punishment for the children that live under the influence of that individual. The child has done nothing to deserve to go hungry and still needs a way to receive proper nutrition. I do believe however that they should be held to the agreement of not having anymore kids. To conceive more children when you already cant feed the current children is mooching of the society that has been so giving to provide a welfare system. I believe overall that if the individual does not have children that they should be held to the requirements issued by the government with relaxed rules if the well being of a child is involved.
ReplyDeleteThe point of setting up a government program to aid those in need is giving to those who need it. Those who are struggling with addiction still deserve food on their plates and a way to make ends meet. Those "mooches" have children to feed, and they are worthy of life themselves. No government program should ever tell a woman what to do with her own body. I have known many women in my lifetimes who have required government aid for a short time and have turned out to be among the most fit of mothers. Although community service is good on paper, many of these citizens do not hold the time to commit to hours of community work. Any time that they have away from work they would like to spend with their children.
ReplyDelete-Macy Phillips
I agree with this post whole-heartedly. No matter the person's flaws, they still deserve food to eat, a place to lay their head at night, electricity and water, AKA the basic necessities to live. Also, the children do not deserve to be punished or forced to go without the things needed to live because of their parents decisions.
DeleteThese precautions are much needed in the welfare system. They are not put in place to make the needy feel any worse about themselves, they are there to make sure the right people get help. Getting any type of help is a privilege, having to do a few things in order to get that help should be very understandable. Those reforms are put in place to help someone get out of their financial struggle. The drug test, making sure whoever gets help from welfare wont spend it on drugs. This helps the right people get help. Not getting pregnant, having a child takes a lot of money and the people on the welfare system already don't have much. This can help people develop some savings if they just have to provide for themselves. Volunteer work is just to give back what is given to you. Again, the criminal record report is just to make sure the right people are getting helped.
ReplyDelete-Justin Chitty
When you prohibit someone from having a child, you prohibit a very basic human right that everyone should have. The people(s) in question are put into a difficult situation and basically forced into a moral dilemma. Either have kids and start a family or pay the bills. In my opinion, this is where the state overextends their power over those in need. Although one could say that this prohibition in this situation is justified because a child would just accrue more need, that would mean that, because one is poor, even though they are receiving help from the state, one can not and should not have the right to bear a child. while this may be perceived as "okay" from a logical standpoint, the world we live in is not entirely logical and those living in it should not be treated as though it is. Our world is covered with emotional people who deserve to be treated as such, and to block someone from a basic human right such as to not allow them to have children is a crime on the most fundamental level. If our nation can spend billions on tanks and oil, we can spend money on allowing poor people to have children.
ReplyDeleteAs the child of a family that grew up in a welfare town, and not only lived on but knew many who lived on the welfare system. I believe this legislation is an important safeguard against misuse. Now, some safeguards may go too far, such as not being permitted to have a child. However, in my parent’s town, it was not uncommon for a couple to live together, file they are separated, use a P.O. box to file a different address, and continue living together. Most individuals are generationally on welfare and have no intent on leaving the system. Unfortunately, these types of people are the ones giving the image of moochers and make it hard for those who truly need and seek to rise above their position to succeed.
ReplyDelete