-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Archives
Meta
Naked Capitalism
Pages
Author Archives: fshkreli
Posts: 2 (archived below)
Comments: 1
On Another Blog
I was looking at some blogs today on the internet and came across a website called AssociatedContent. Like many other blogs, viewers rate the postings of amateur and professional authors according to what there thesis, what they actually say, and how they back it up. On the topic of welfare, a user named “Kyle” posted something I found very interesting. i found myself agreeing with him most of the time, but for some reason, a lot of people gave this guy a 2 out of 5 stars rating. I was wondering why this might be the case. Anyway, credit to Kyle, here’s what he says:
The welfare system in the United States was designed to help poorer people to afford the cost of living. However, the current system provides an incentive for people not to work and is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
“Welfare is supposed to be temporary, only for a short time to help people during a tough time. The system is taken advantage of too often and many people don’t look for work and just depend on their checks to support them. This is not fair to people who are working and have to pay the money that helps these people who aren’t doing anything to help themselves. It is very difficult to fix the system though because there are also a lot of people who are trying to find work and just can’t and it wouldn’t be fair to take away their benefits because of the people who abused the system. Some changes must be made to keep this system helping those who actually need it and keep people from just relying on others to support them.
There should be penalties for people who aren’t looking for work or improving their skills. Education should be encouraged to help people on welfare be able to take control of their lives and not have to use welfare any longer. There also should be better incentives to work, not losing all benefits at a certain point. As people earn more money their welfare should decrease, but the total money they receive should increase to provide a reason for them to work more. There should also be more checks to make sure welfare recipients are looking for work or improving their education and if they aren’t they should stop receiving benefits. Welfare needs to be thought of as a short term help not a long term solution for unemployed people.”
Do you think that this pretty much sums up what we’ve been discussing in the class? Why or why not? What is this guy missing? I wish he would have discussed the stigmas that are very much attatched to his topic of choice.
The Other Side Of Things
As I was doing research for my topic, The Social Welfare and Economic Imbalance In The Balkans, i came across this article that really blew my mind. As this is a class about social welfare and it encourages our questioning of these institutions, I remembered that it also provides for the analysis of these functions through different angles. The one angle I took is to see how these factors might correlate or reciprocate on the other side of the world. I was — at the same time — shocked and not, when I read this:
“One out of five Europeans — 93 million people — lives under the poverty line. The poor include rural people in Central and Eastern Europe and ethnic minorities such as the Roma, who are among the poorest people in Europe. The Roma comprise almost 40 per cent of poor people in Romania and Bulgaria. More than eight out of ten in the Republic of Moldova live below the poverty line, many of them in rural areas. In the southern and eastern zones of Europe, agriculture earns 30 per cent or more of GDP and a large proportion of the population is rural. More than half of the people in Albania, Armenia and the Republic of Moldova live in rural areas. In the heavily industrialized northern and western zones of Europe, agriculture contributes one tenth of the gross domestic product (GDP). The rural population varies from 25 to 40 per cent of total population. The EU earmarks a significant part of its common budget for development of the least advantaged rural areas within the Union. Development funds that are an integral component of the EU’s agricultural policy will benefit the Eastern European countries that have recently become members of the EU. An additional part of the EU’s common development budget is allocated for poverty reduction in developing countries throughout the world.”
Perhaps this might not strike you as anything crazy, but this — in conjunction with another article that I read regarding a mere 58,000,000 children living under the harsh conditions of poverty — might brew something in you. Is there anything to be learned here? You read things like these, and for the most of us that are immigrants here at Baruch, what do you feel? Would you rather sacrifice (if you could) the situation here to make things better in Europe where many of you have younger relatives and old grandparents if you could? This might not apply to everyone, but if not Europe, consider those living among extreme poverty in Latin and South America; Some Guatemalan workers make a whopping $2 a day!
Posted in Uncategorized
1 Comment