Research Paper

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 99 | Comments: 0 | Views: 995
of 7
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Homework for soc

Comments

Content

For my research paper, I decided to look deeper into the
American welfare system, and why every society seems to have a
welfare system, although their impact widely varies. This paper
will focus on the American welfare system, and how society’s
dependence, use of, and perspective on welfare has changed over
time. I will also provide my personal thoughts and interests on
the discussion after a thorough discussion. I will also analyze
how the different types of sociologists, (functionalists,
conflict theorists, and symbolic interactionists), would view
welfare in the USA.
First, let us delve into both the beginning of welfare in
the US, and when controversy first arose over it. The American
welfare system was widely believed to have its origins in the New
Deal, specifically the Social Security Act of 1935. Next, in
1960, President Johnson started the War on Poverty, introducing
Medicare, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and many other programs.
Poverty was reduced from 23% of the population to 12% when
Johnson was President. Poverty didn’t rise again until 1982, when
15% of Americans faced poverty, under President Ronald Reagan.(6)
For the last 40 years, poverty has stayed between 12% and 15%(6),
however, the monthly payment from Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families(TANF), has dramatically dropped(adjusted for inflation)
from around $239 in 1979 to around $154 in 2005.(5) In contrast

the number in poverty in millions has risen from around 24
million to 39.8 million in the same time period, however, this is
likely a result of population growth, as the poverty rate changed
little during that period. Controversy over welfare began almost
immediately after the New Deal, with many sociologists claiming
that WWII was truly responsible for the unemployment reduction
rate and better standard of life, as the war created the demand
for many new jobs and industries. Functionalists argue welfare
must have arisen and stayed because it serves some function to
society. One of these functions would be reducing the poverty
rate, allowing more people to spend and create a more robust
economy, and to better life standards for many. It also had the
benefit of supporting the elderly, many of whom are unemployable
and in need of assistance. However many dysfunctions are also
apparent, in the people who abuse the system, creating such
headlines as “tax dollars wasted by welfare abuse (7), listing
detailed accounts of welfare money being spent on Graceland
tickets and thousands of dollars spent on alcohol. Conflict
theorists would argue that welfare arises from the conflict
between those in poverty and truly unable to work and survive on
their own without help, and those who are comparatively
wealthier, with the wealthy wishing to hold on to their wealth
and power and the poor wanting that wealth for themselves. While
this certainly explains why the needs of many in poverty created

the welfare system, it does little to explain those who are able
to work, and choose not to, instead collecting benefits, or those
who spend the welfare on alcohol. Symbolic interactionists would
analyze our symbol for welfare. In the 1930-40’s much of the
welfare system was created for the elderly, and so our symbols
and meanings for welfare would be helping the poor in their old
age, and helping the unemployable due to age. However, with
President Johnson’s war on poverty, this meant helping anyone,
young or old, who needed assistance. And so the meanings behind
the symbol and associations with welfare changed dramatically, to
those who were now incentivized to not work. After all, if you
receive benefits while not working, and they go away when you
work, why would you keep working, if you didn’t have the drive to
want and support yourself, which due widespread abuse of welfare,
estimated to be around 2.67% of all cases(8), is clearly a large
problem.
Now we will move onto current views on welfare, and many of
the current conventional wisdom surrounding welfare, much of
which has proven to be wrong by sociologists. Most people who
support welfare argue that is being used to help those in need,
and that it isn’t doing enough and that more people need help.
They also argue that since there are still those in poverty,
common sense says we need more welfare. However common sense has

been shown to be an ineffective measure of the best way to
benefit society. Like mentioned above, it is likely the New Deal
didn’t have nearly as much to do with recovering the economy and
those without jobs as WWII did. However, there is significant
evidence to suggest abuse of the system, or at the very least,
the need to implement it more effectively. One of the more
popular terms used to deride welfare, and those who abuse it, is
the term welfare queen, popularized in 1976 when President Reagan
described Linda Taylor, a infamous woman who was accused of
abusing the welfare system, accused of stealing over $154,000,
( $717,783.73 adjusted for inflation)(9). Although he never used
the term, he described Linda as such: "She has eighty names,
thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting
veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And
she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got
Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare
under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over
$150,000.” Symbolic interactionists would recognize that the
symbols and associations for welfare changed dramatically in this
time period, as welfare turned from supporting those in need, to
supporting “welfare queens”. This perception has continued today,
with many believing that those on welfare simply blame society.
Such popular opinion was expressed by Newt Gringrinch, in his
book quoted by Newsweek, “By blaming everything on "society,"

contemporary liberals are really trying to escape the personal
responsibility that comes with being an American. If "society" is
responsible for everything, then no one is personally responsible
for anything.”(2) This argument is support by a few facts;
a. The percentage in poverty hasn’t changed significantly
between 1980 and 2008.( Varying between 12% and 15%, a 8%
change.(6)
b. The percent of people receiving public assistance has
gone from 4.6% to 6.5%( a 141% change!)(10)
c. If there is now a 141% increase in the percentage of
those on welfare, why hasn’t the percentage in poverty
changed as dramatically?
This data leaves a few conclusions. Either the money is going to
those in poverty, but is doing little to alleviate the poverty,
or it isn’t going to those in poverty and is instead being
abused. The proper solution might be to do a what a “true
American does”, as Gringrich says “But when confronted with a
problem, a true American doesn't ask, "Who can I blame this on?"
A true American asks, "What can I do about it today?"”(2) But it
is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the cause or fix
for this glaring discrepancy.
I picked this topic because as a tax-paying American, I feel
like I have a responsibility to care how my taxes are used. I
fully support the notion that those with a life not in poverty

should help those in need of food and shelter. It is just the
right thing to do. But we need to ensure these people don’t
become dependent on the government, or become incentivized to
live off welfare. As a grocery clerk, many a time I saw people
buy 500-600 dollars groceries off a EBT card, or foodstamps, and
yet drive away in a brand new SUV, or other expensive vehicle,
wearing trendy clothing. While I make enough to support myself, I
have a full time job that pays little more than minimum wage,
even though I am a Microsoft Certified Technician and in a
supervisory position, working as a certified computer technician.
Yet I still pay taxes that support and pay for people who have a
higher quality of life just living off welfare. Granted, my taxes
also go to those who need it, as well as other state functions of
course, and of those I am fully supportive. But with a 141%
percent of those on welfare, and only an 8% percent change in the
percentage of those in poverty, it is obvious that there is a
problem, whether it is abuse of welfare, or the inability of
welfare to lift people out of poverty, is in question, and is a
problem in desperate need of a solution.
Sources
1. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/welfare.htm
l
2. http://www.newsweek.com/renewing-america-184562

3. https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/advancesinsocialwork/ar
ticle/viewFile/194/163
4.http://www.unm.edu/~coughlin/links/Publications/Welfare_Myth
s_and_Stereotypes.pdf
5. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml#ftanf2
6.http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2008/
pov08fig03.pdf
7.http://www.wmctv.com/story/19151942/the-investigators-howwelfare-dollars-are-being-abused
8.http://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/Data.htm
9.http://books.google.com/books?
id=DVsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false
10.http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_32.asp

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close