Argument Essay

Imagine a society where there wasn't any government assistance. Do you think our society would be more productive or more poverty-stricken? There are occasions where we have very stereotypical views about the welfare program. Society has created the assumptions that its minorities, unwed mothers, or the disabled are on welfare. Then there's the question, Should welfare be eliminated as a governmental assistance program? No, I don't believe welfare should be eliminated, but should be made stronger with certain stipulations. Welfare should not be eliminated but made stronger because it encourages work, isn't responsible for out-of-wedlock births, and reduces poverty among children.

After the Great Depression Era, President Franklin Roosevelt implemented a governmental aid program now known as welfare. When the program was first implemented, it was for those who had been immersed by poverty from the depression. Throughout this program the government also offered jobs to help you make it through certain difficult circumstances. After having the job for a while, the situation would improve and you were off welfare. Initially, the program TANF (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) was started to help the people through complicated times. The program was designed for people to stay on the program for two to three years, not for extended periods of time and encourages work ethic. The Economic Policy Institute states that "Under current law, welfare recipients may only receive assistance for a maximum of 60 months in their lifetime." Therefore it is almost impossible for someone to life off welfare for more than five years. Also, "Current welfare law says that states must have 50% of their TANF caseloads involved in "work-related activities" (also referred to as "countable" or "allowable" activities) for 30 hours each week." (Economic Policy Institute, par. 4) So you must also have a job to continue receiving welfare.

There are different cases of welfare commonly regarded by American people. Situation one: a family has lived on governmental assistance for an extended amount of time, continue propagating illegitimate children, and don't attempt to get a job. Situation two: a working family has been laid off their job, and needs governmental assistance to survive. Situation three: an elderly person has retired and their Social Security check doesn't cover the necessities, such as medicine, food, and shelter. In many instances situation one is the most commonly held view, however, this isn't everyone on government assistance. In all actuality "couples who once might have wed and then divorced now are not marrying at all", according to The State of our Unions 2005. The annual report, which analyzes Census and other data, is issued by the National Marriage Project at New Jersey's Rutgers University. "The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement." Marital fertility declines, even if the rate doesn't. We know that most changes in recent years have to do with the decline in marriage, not with the increase in non-marital childbearing. Marriage is occurring later and fertility within marriage is delayed. That has a large economic component to it. It's not that people are never marrying; they are postponing