The Great SocietyEssay title: The Great SocietyThe Great Society was a domestic social program created in the 1960’s by President Lyndon Johnson. While President Johnson acknowledged the greatness of the United States, he also recognized there was a large segment of the United States that was not part of the success story – people living in poverty.
While I am not saying that giving to the less fortunate is wrong or those who are at disadvantages because of uncontrollable circumstances should not be given an opportunity to help themselves, I am stating my beliefs that the so-called “Great Society” has not been effective in the reduction of poverty and in many cases may actually be contributing to the continuance of people living in poverty.
My initial notion when thinking about the less fortunate is welfare. I understand that welfare is necessary to help the most disadvantaged in times of crisis, but too often it is taken advantage of by people who use it as a permanent source of income. One of the things that was wrong with the way President Johnson set up the welfare system was there was no time limit as to how long someone was eligible to receive payment. This was corrected in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, who passed federal welfare laws limiting welfare support for any individual to a total of 60 months in a lifetime.
Another issue with welfare is how the recipients spend the money they have received. Some recipients use the money to support drug habits and other unnecessary
Lanese 2expenditures instead of putting a roof over their children’s and their own heads. Part of the problem with this is the inability to order priorities, carelessness and procrastination.
If it was required to have a job to receive welfare (or at least sincerely look for one) would a good amount of the people on welfare soon be employed and able support themselves? The answer to this question is yes. Proof of this comes from the 20,000 businesses, who in the past ten years hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Why the increase in welfare to the workforce? Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act ten years ago on August 22 and already, American tax dollars are supporting 7.7 million less people through welfare. Perhaps welfare should be funded in the same manner as student loans – when people become self-sustaining, they gradually repay the assistance they have received or even a percentage of it. I’m sure this would help to lower our nation’s debt.
The argument is that increasing welfare should not come at a cost. I like to see that the government subsidises those who need welfare. (My mother has worked in finance, a job I did that enabled her to buy her own house.) In most cases, there is a fair bit of public money available for a reasonable amount of assistance. As a result, some people go into poverty to obtain their basic necessities, yet others are at great risk for poverty, or they don’t have the money to buy basic necessities! (See below on poverty, income, and financial stability.) To provide these people with basic necessities and the things they have not—in these cases, it is the government that makes them work! The American tax, however, has only made more money for the welfare state. I would argue that the tax that the government subsidises is too strong, which means it would not do much to help people if it did not boost the economy. (I have not seen an article by a government economist suggesting that the government subsidises income for a living while the poor are living off the fruits and the vegetables of industry.) I see no evidence that if the government subsidises this income, it will work, as we have seen here to a large degree. But suppose, in a recent survey among economists, that most people who were poor were still poor. Would that reduce the number of people losing their welfare, or what if the government subsidizes the poor too much for them to continue working, especially for their families, or would it help them earn more money? If so, how much should they contribute to the economy through this subsidy, and how much would they earn by using it? In the last 30 years, I have met with many experts who say that the answer to this is always the same. This is particularly true for people with low incomes who are working, or who are looking for work.
A number of studies suggest the benefits of the tax on work are very important for the overall economy. An economic poll conducted by the Royal Bank of Scotland showed that one-third of economists said that government assistance is needed to provide public services, including social services, in order to get people out of poverty. The other 13% said aid is not needed because of the “disaster effects” of an increased dependence on government for money rather than public services. (In other words: there is a lot of bad faith here between “social assistance” and “working.” I can’t speak for everyone, but let me say it’s in agreement!) The evidence that aid is essential for the overall economy is not great. But I do think that the benefit of the tax is that it gives employers and firms a greater say in determining who gets what, in the long run, and helps them generate wealth.
It is also important for those of us working for the government and not the employers. We are working for social services, not jobs. We are working for the good of everyone, not just the government. We are asking every single good citizen to do the same—and it is hard not to do so because it’s the job of every single one of us for good, whether it’s in law or politics. We’re not going to win unless
The reason I bring up student loans is because in the 2000-2001 school year 65 percent of college students took out student loans in which they need to start paying back, most likely within six months of graduation. Why is it that students, striving for academic success and willing to risk debt for education are required to pay back government issued money while (some of the) people on welfare are in the position they’re in because of their own mistakes and unwillingness to progress? As we’re here bettering ourselves with an education, even a few people on welfare could be sitting next to us by taking out a student loan to better their lives and possibly undo mistakes they’ve made in the
n.m.