This particular argument is proof of my partial indecisiveness. While I agree that too much too much welfare is not beneficial to the recipient(s), I do not agree with doing away with all social-welfare programs completely. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), aimed mainly at single mothers with dependent children, puts a limit on checks receivable over a specified period of time. I feel programs suck as TANF do benefit families in need simply because they do what all welfare funding should be doing, placing a limit on funds received and the time period over which they are given. The temporary funding allows the recipient(s) to get up, get out, and look for work, while simultaneously giving enough money to live on before the first paycheck. A portion of the money will be distributed into job training as well. By placing a limit on funds over time, the recipient is not allowed to fall into the zone. .
This program (TANF) not only mandates time limits on welfare checks, but also allows states to reprogram money saved from unspent welfare outlays into expenditures necessary to help former recipients succeed as workers (Kuttner).
Not only does the TANF play a sole welfare role, but government leaders and educators are working to give free tuition to people who sign up for the "career ladder" programs at college, as opposed to forwarding it all to job training. Recipients benefit this way through work and learning. .
This year (2000) $129 million was put into job training former welfare recipients are simply pushed into low-wage work and punished if they choose instead to go to school (Kuttner).
What exactly are the causes of poverty? More so, should the problems always be blamed solely on the individual? First off, there are numerous factors that contribute to indigence. Choices made in life (drugs, alcohol, etc ), attitude, lack of skill, pregnancy (women), and lack of motivation, are just a few that come to mind from an individual perspective.