Having no rules barely ever works. Without rules the success of the people is based on their integrity. In the United States there are some who do not find using welfare money for unnecessary wants as a dishonest act. This disrupts the well-being of those who are truly in need, and it is the reason the United States should regulate government welfare by drug testing and monitoring purchases. Government funds, which include the taxpayers’ money, are being used to support those in need. Typically, those in need are thought to be hungry and without basic necessities. Welfare that should be going to these people in need is instead fueling wants of people who are plaguing the welfare program. They are using the government payments not to pay for food or clothes, but instead to use as money for their normal lifestyle of mischievous spending. The program needs to be regulated, and it is constitutional to do so (Schaberg). If the system was changed, then the funds could be used toward better government programs, and could also help those truly in need by eliminating those who are taking advantage of the system. Government supported welfare, such as unemployment, is being spent incorrectly. Some welfare recipients use their government granted money at places such as strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos (S. S966). Often this kind of spending is the reason they became unemployed in the first place (Rubio). Someone who became unemployed due to a drinking problem may continue buying alcohol with their unemployment money. Welfare from the government is partly funded by tax money; therefore, taxpayers are essentially paying for the bad habits of citizens that want easy money for liquor and strip clubs (Public Welfare). The problem became so severe in New York City that the state of New York passed a bill to regulate the spending of welfare funds; however, the United States government has yet to approve bills regulating welfare the same way (S. S966). The citizens who are using welfare money to spend on items other than necessities are plaguing the system, and weakening the reputation of those who truly need it. This weakens their reputation because it leads people to believe that welfare recipients are unable to spend their money wisely. If the welfare recipients were narrowed down to those who truly need the support, then it would help the recipients regain a positive reputation with the taxpayers (Finzel).
…show more content…
It is well known that this is not the situation for some welfare recipients. Truly needy recipients would not be affected by the system being regulated because they would still be able to purchase food, clothing, housing, and other resources to help them provide for themselves. Regulating the welfare system would only affect those who are abusing it, and it would allow those who use it properly to continue receiving support. Those who are currently causing corruption in the welfare system, by spending their money inappropriately, are holding themselves back from reaching their full potential, and causing those who use it correctly to be included in the abusers negative reputation (Rubio)(Finzel). A part of the group that is supported by the government is purposely not working at their full potential. There are many benefits to being unemployed, such as welfare money. There are many situations where someone who is unemployed would lose more benefits than they would gain by being employed (Rubio). This means some people aren’t motivated to search for a job so they can continue to receive welfare benefits. This creates fewer and fewer people who get off welfare and contribute to the work force. Since people are able to use welfare funds for unnecessary items, this allows them to have the same purchasing freedoms as someone who had a job (Rubio). If their wants are already being paid for, then what motivation do they have to get a job? If there are negative effects to getting a job, then those on welfare are less motivated to get out and search for work. If the spending of government funds was regulated then, it would limit what could be purchased. For example, if a man was supported solely by welfare and wanted a new TV, he would not be able to buy
It is well known that this is not the situation for some welfare recipients. Truly needy recipients would not be affected by the system being regulated because they would still be able to purchase food, clothing, housing, and other resources to help them provide for themselves. Regulating the welfare system would only affect those who are abusing it, and it would allow those who use it properly to continue receiving support. Those who are currently causing corruption in the welfare system, by spending their money inappropriately, are holding themselves back from reaching their full potential, and causing those who use it correctly to be included in the abusers negative reputation (Rubio)(Finzel). A part of the group that is supported by the government is purposely not working at their full potential. There are many benefits to being unemployed, such as welfare money. There are many situations where someone who is unemployed would lose more benefits than they would gain by being employed (Rubio). This means some people aren’t motivated to search for a job so they can continue to receive welfare benefits. This creates fewer and fewer people who get off welfare and contribute to the work force. Since people are able to use welfare funds for unnecessary items, this allows them to have the same purchasing freedoms as someone who had a job (Rubio). If their wants are already being paid for, then what motivation do they have to get a job? If there are negative effects to getting a job, then those on welfare are less motivated to get out and search for work. If the spending of government funds was regulated then, it would limit what could be purchased. For example, if a man was supported solely by welfare and wanted a new TV, he would not be able to buy