Governing Political orientations Essay, Research Paper
Core Studies 3 Casilda Adames
Take-home Exam November 16, 1999
The opinion political orientation covering with public assistance is a negative position among the bulk of Americans. It states that public assistance receivers are lazy people who have tonss of kids and collect cheques for a long period of clip. This statement is believed largely among higher-class people because they feel that if they can work hard for their money, public assistance receivers can make the same, and non populate off other people? s money.
Charles Murray supports the statement? public assistance policies encourage hapless adult females to hold more kids? in one of his books, but is proven incorrect by careful surveies and demographics. It has been studied that public assistance has about no consequence on bearing kids. These surveies show that younger adult females are more likely to be hapless and their poorness makes their kids hapless. American grownups by far are more unequal in wealth and income than any other industrial society every bit good as the worsening incomes of immature work forces since the mid-1970s. Many immature work forces can non afford to maintain their kids out of poorness or make up one’s mind non to the grip the responsibilities or duties of matrimony, go forthing immature female parents and kids even poorer, taking them to depend on public assistance. Harmonizing to a New York Times article dated 2/29/92, there are fewer kids having aid from public assistance and are non merely being lazy but and roll uping cheques, but really acquiring off public assistance.
This opinion political orientation that most of the American society supports leads to the deficiency of broad political support and budget-cutting
of means-tested plans. These mean-tested plans are available merely to those people who can turn out that they
are hapless. Merely Social Security and Medicare, both Universal plans, have mostly survived cutbacks in recent old ages because it is widely accepted throughout the American society. The ground it is accepted in the American society is that everybody contributes to societal security and everybody benefits from it. As stated before many people in the American society do non desire to back up the public assistance people because they are perceived to be lazy rotters, who merely collect cheques and have lost of kids, which persuades people? s attitudes to non back up these means-tested plans including public assistance.
AFDC has been repeatedly cut and will go on to worsen every bit long as federal authoritiess transfer duty for public assistance to province authoritiess which aids the American? s political orientation that aid to the hapless must be? limited, conditional and unpleasant? so that people get off public assistance and get occupations. This cuts and limits the sum of means-tested plans such as public assistance because neither the federal nor the province authorities take it upon themselves to protect public assistance and other plans from being cut, in contrast to cosmopolitan plans such as Medicare and Social which are politically supported. Cosmopolitan plans have helped cut downing poorness among largely the aged and non the younger public assistance receivers.
This dominant political orientation contained among the American society is merely one of many, that shows the grade of inequality in our society today and how hapless are perceived through the remainder of the society.