Welfare and the Public
The following question was the question posed to my Sociology of the Family class in this weeks review of our chapter reading. It deals specifically with the sociological study of Conflict Theory. From what I have read in the text for our class this theory is advanced largely through a scarcity of resources.
Discuss some of the societal restrictions that inhibit full access to resources for women who are on welfare. What are the negative consequences of continued scarcity of resources from a conflict perspective? What are the positive consequences, if any?
From The Constitution Party, the political party for which I have recently become affiliated, as a matter of disclaimer, "Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of the United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens.." and "...welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive."
I quoted my political parties platform on welfare, because I am a strong proponent in the idea that the welfare, social security, and/or medi-anything has created the reliance on these social policies. At their core they promote laziness and breed the back door for morally bankrupt and irresponsible people. The allowance for having 'accident' or unplanned pregnancies financially supported by socialistic reward systems lends no importance for responsibility or abstinence based thinking and action. It has fostered a new, highly advertised and marketable society of "if it feels good do it" mentality. Beyond my opinion about the improperness of social based aid packages, it is also unconstitutional. The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate any social policies.
I am sure there are valid reasons why a social program might benefit a person. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no legal right to tax it's citizen's to support it or for that matter to administer it. If welfare were removed from the equation and it's recipients were forced to take responsibility for their own lives, it is my belief, that there would be a new awakening of responsibility growth; dare I say, even an advancement back to higher levels of morality.
What about the people that are realistically and seriously in need of some outside means of support, you might ask? Remember the days when family took care of family? The area of social support is best left to family and if an organization is needed to become involved, it would be best served by charitable or faith based organizations.
It is my opinion, and the facts support this ideology, that there is no scarcity of resources, but instead a scarcity of responsibility and morality. It is hard for me to view the welfare system as a model for the conflict theory, because the scarcity of resources to fuel such a debate doesn't exist. Our nation has the lowest unemployment numbers in recent history. The job market is strong. The country is prospering, despite energy prices and the undermining illegal alien's effect on our economy (notice I didn't say immigrant; I did that on purpose, because they are not that...but that is another blog topic).
I've probably stepped on a few toes here, but I make no apologies for my stance on this. The world, largely because of modernization, has become very liberal where areas of morality are concerned and we're starting to sow the consequences of what we've for too long reaped; the lack of a solid moral base.
Okay, let me have it. I have broad shoulders.
Discuss some of the societal restrictions that inhibit full access to resources for women who are on welfare. What are the negative consequences of continued scarcity of resources from a conflict perspective? What are the positive consequences, if any?
From The Constitution Party, the political party for which I have recently become affiliated, as a matter of disclaimer, "Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of the United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens.." and "...welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive."
I quoted my political parties platform on welfare, because I am a strong proponent in the idea that the welfare, social security, and/or medi-anything has created the reliance on these social policies. At their core they promote laziness and breed the back door for morally bankrupt and irresponsible people. The allowance for having 'accident' or unplanned pregnancies financially supported by socialistic reward systems lends no importance for responsibility or abstinence based thinking and action. It has fostered a new, highly advertised and marketable society of "if it feels good do it" mentality. Beyond my opinion about the improperness of social based aid packages, it is also unconstitutional. The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate any social policies.
I am sure there are valid reasons why a social program might benefit a person. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no legal right to tax it's citizen's to support it or for that matter to administer it. If welfare were removed from the equation and it's recipients were forced to take responsibility for their own lives, it is my belief, that there would be a new awakening of responsibility growth; dare I say, even an advancement back to higher levels of morality.
What about the people that are realistically and seriously in need of some outside means of support, you might ask? Remember the days when family took care of family? The area of social support is best left to family and if an organization is needed to become involved, it would be best served by charitable or faith based organizations.
It is my opinion, and the facts support this ideology, that there is no scarcity of resources, but instead a scarcity of responsibility and morality. It is hard for me to view the welfare system as a model for the conflict theory, because the scarcity of resources to fuel such a debate doesn't exist. Our nation has the lowest unemployment numbers in recent history. The job market is strong. The country is prospering, despite energy prices and the undermining illegal alien's effect on our economy (notice I didn't say immigrant; I did that on purpose, because they are not that...but that is another blog topic).
I've probably stepped on a few toes here, but I make no apologies for my stance on this. The world, largely because of modernization, has become very liberal where areas of morality are concerned and we're starting to sow the consequences of what we've for too long reaped; the lack of a solid moral base.
Okay, let me have it. I have broad shoulders.
posted by Troy at 1:51 PM
4 Comments:
OK, so I’ve never posted to a blog before so please forgive any inadvertent norm violations…
Interesting, yet seems to ignore the point of conflict theorists who suggest that perhaps the reason that some feel the need for a welfare system is because of the lack of access to resources. Women in particular, even when working multiple jobs, tend to be overrepresented in low-paying caretaker roles. Given social shifts over the past ~35 years there are few who have the luxury of a single income family with one member able to stay home to raise the children. This then creates a bind--women who are only able to earn minimum wage or marginally more can hardly afford food and shelter--not to mention the scarcity of even basic health resources or decent child care. If we, as a society, placed a higher value on caretaker roles (which then would raise the wage of care-workers) perhaps there would be less of a need for social services to act as a backfill?
Read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed—it’s a great expose’ on the working poor…
Just my two cents worth ;-)
See, I think it dealt with CT, because the perceived scarcity of resources doesn't or at the very least wouldn't exist had we never had a social program to begin with. If we did a better job of educating and developing our young people combined with the fact that there will be no social net for them to take from then women could and would be making higher incomes.
I'll give you that women overall make less then men and I don't think they should. However, women can and often do make very high incomes. My wife, for instance, worked six jobs at one time to put herself through school. She even joined the military to receive financial assistance. She was resourceful and as a result she obtained her bachelor's degree. She came from a one parent home (her dad died) and very easily could have qualified for other social aid, but she determined to do it herself. She is more highly educated then I am and she makes a handsome living, affording me the ability to remain at home and care for our children.
Take away the problem that under girds the issue, in this case social aid, and you force the people to be responsible for themselves.
I do agree with you that there is a need to place higher value on our caretakers. The socioeconomic conditions that have forced our mothers into the work sector have only served to degrade our deepest rooted traditions and values. Not that I think women should be barefoot and pregnant, but I think when we farm out our children to other people to take care of it denigrates their identities and allows them to be programmed by others more dramatically which further breaks down our society. It’s a vicious loop that is critically in need of serious intervention. We’re losing ourselves slowly but surely.
So where CT is concerned I am not able to address welfare, because the scarcity of resources was created by welfare. The resources are there, but we’ve programmed our women to believe they’re not and that it is their right to be cared for. That is the conflict.
I say all this at the risk of my grade. Who am I to argue with a PhD? I don’t even have my associate’s degree yet. Thanks for commenting Professor Elrod and feel free to comment anytime.
Hmmm...shouldn't you always be able to argue your opinion with anyone, regardless of degree? (Back to the ole' freedom of speech ideal :-P).
I have to disagree that welfare created scarcity of resources. Are you claiming that there was no scarcity prior to enactment of welfare? In fact, welfare was created in reaction to scarcity...
While I wouldn't classify myself as a conflict theorist, I would agree with their premise that gender socialization has led to social inequality. While welfare as we currently know it is certainly not the solution, we should keep in mind that the original intent of the program was to act as a stop-gap for those who had no where else to turn.
It is indeed unfortunate that the media has focused on those who have taken advantage of the system and not those working poor who are denied because they "make too much." I personally know a 2-earner family who were going hungry because they couldn't get out of the minimum wage sector (given the amount of unemployment in their rural area). When they went for help, they were denied because they made $5/mo "too much."
By focusing on those who unnecessarily take advantage we are able to overlook the real problem of social inequality…
I am sure we all know people who have some connection to the welfare system. We probably all know people who received benefits and shouldn't have and people who needed help, but didn't get it.
There's no denying that at its conception things were dim and I am sure that this seemed like an appropriate thing to do to help. In terms of the constitutional aspect of it, the government should never have begun a social welfare system. It neither had the authority to do so nor the right to administrate anything like it. That power is not afforded them anywhere in the Constitution.
The social inequality between women and men is unfortunate, but that gap was further widened by a social welfare program. It’s a self fueling paradox. The scarcity that existed then would appear to have continued right up until today and I feel that is just the perception. Even if scarcity does still exist, and there is no question that there are some who legitimaly need a hand from time to time, it’s only aspirated by the welfare system itself because of conditioning at a generational level. It has fueled the level of immorality, irresponsibility, and thinking that it is the government’s obligation to dish out free money for someone else’s misgivings.
Scarcity of resources today does not even come close to the measure of the scarcity of Roosevelt’s time. Not that the scarcity then would have made it okay for a social welfare package. As I said before, our economy is strong, the unemployment is down to unprecedented numbers, and the future is bright. Our country has taken great stride in narrowing the divide between women and men in the workplace. Women for the first time, in many industries, are earning more then men.
Do people need help? Sure, I suppose some do. Their lack of education limits them. Which isn’t the government’s fault, it’s theirs, and again fueled by the thinking that welfare will support their lack of ambition. Not all welfare recipients are bad people, I don’t mean to sound like that, but they’re there for some reason. Whose fault is it really, generally speaking?
Generally speaking, there is no need for welfare today even if the government did have the authority to administrate it. For those with legitimate need, that would be better left to faith based organizations to assist and administrate. Faith based organizations could assist while teaching morality at the same time. Not forcing a religion on anyone, but teaching them that there are consequences to their actions and that it is not okay.
Post a Comment
<< Home