The American welfare system has failed. But why, you’re asking? The answer: when food stamps can be used to buy sodas and junk food from the 7/11 gas station just half a mile from your trailer park, we have a problem.
“Wait! But that is government’s fault for not making corporations operate in my neighbor.”
Well, sorry that you live in a food desert.
Any general welfare programs counteract against the free market system that runs the global, national, state, and local economies that we exploit, daily. Hearkening back to economics class, a free market must, naturally, correct itself to accommodate growing populations and government regulations. Thus, the interference of the regulations and governmental influence strains the free market and it must correct itself with losers and winners.
In this scenario, the winners would be the government for garnering growth and the losers would be the very poor people that welfare was intended to help. This creates a problem; however, what is the solution to said problem?
Like I mentioned prior, economies have varying factors to adapt to, like population growth and governmental regulation. Considering the outcomes of population control, I advise against that because everyone has the right to live a full and fulfilling life in the free market society we find ourselves in. The government regulation and policies, only remain.
Because of the post-election environment the United States is currently facing, fiscal sanity and responsibility have been atop the minds of all Americans. Having to look to our elected officials at the state and federal levels for answers, the dawning of President-elect Donald Trump’s reform era puts a lame duck congress, even though Republican held, on it’s heals. As like any push to hold leaders accountable, millions of Americans citizens have seen through the facade of welfare and mother government’s kindness. Like those concerned citizens, I am seeking answers to the elephant in the room: keeping the poor, poorer.
The Reality of the Situation.
Getting past the rhetoric, the intention of any welfare program should be to provide resources to the poorest ff the poor to learn and grow how to advance in the economy without the government.
For limited amounts of time, a welfare program should bestow onto people the bare necessities. It should compel poor people to go out and get a job, purchase what they need to live, and work to sustaining themselves and their families.
Adding to that, any welfare program, in general, should not be so “giving” because of the truth that people will grow accustomed to the handouts. Currently, welfare programs are determined by need, based on parameters like the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), average household incomes (gross and or net), disability requirements, whether you have children, and a plethora of other things. However, where the problem occurs is that the individuals that are brought onto welfare, as mentioned prior, are not given incentive to get off welfare.
To begin to address this paradigm, beneficiaries of several welfare programs can earn more in state sponsored benefits versus actually going out and getting jobs that require basic skilled and unskilled labor. With this being the case, why would anyone want to give up such a benefit?
This is the principled problem. Due to the state of the system, people are kept dependent because of the high level of benefits given to a select few million citizens of the population. People won’t go out and find a job and/or not realize their fullest potential.
We need reforms, desperately.
Latest posts by Michael McGrady (see all)
- Israel, Russia: Obama Ending 2016 Being a Dick, As Usual - December 31, 2016
- The Welfare State: A Love Story - December 17, 2016
- North Korea During The Donald Trump Era - December 8, 2016