Take clothing for example: A group of brands have cornered the market on fashion for the teenage generation. Why? “Everyone else is wearing it!” A statement so simple; yet at the same time: so fueled and injected with underlying meaning. Granted that the innocent remark  may very well be true, the real problem is in its significance. Those wearing brands A,B, and C are “cool” , as some say: the “in crowd”; while those wearing D, E, F are “poor”, or “losers”  or any one of a dozen other labels. Parents, supportive of their child’s desire to fit in, are inadvertently supporting the crippling of our culture, our morality, and our nation. How? We are degrading them to a simple list of labels. Driving full speed into a society  where character ceases to exist. Honesty, Dignity, Bravery, Humility; all set away on a shelf to be forgotten at the replacement of what? 

Appearance. 

Disregard who you are; your goals, your dreams, your visions, your morals. Replace them with society’s warm, welcoming stamp of approval. What are we teaching our kids?

 Wait in line with everyone else getting on a train headed straight for failure. 

           The same culture that teaches America’s youth to buy brand name, over-priced clothing on Mom and Dads dollar taught them this: a good education is unnecessary. They’ve glamorized the party-hard, care free, work-free lifestyle as much as they possibly can. Why? It dramatically boosts the sales in the alcohol, tobacco, clothing  and cosmetic industries. But all they’ve done is spoon feed lies to an unsuspecting generation. They’ve baited our youth right into the office of a taxpayers worst nightmare: the United States Deparment of Health and Welfare. 

           Does it come as a shock that the grandiose, multimillion dollar  companies who advertise this unsustainable lifestyle refuse to hire the careless individuals it took part in shaping? It shouldnt. Those that sit in corporate offices with executive titles got there through hard work, determination, and education. The marketing ploys they design for society are concocted by elaborate minds who, themselves, would never fall for it themselves. But the victims of it schemes are left struggling.

          We, as one of the few surviving, self-sufficient generations, can reverse the grim future of our culture, our economy, our nation, and our world. It starts with an individual decision to do exactly what we ars Americans are expected not to do; rebel against rebellion. 

       IF WE DONT TAKE A STAND, HERE AND NOW, WHO WILL?

         This brings me to the question of whether or not the British welfare state was a good or bad thing. As explained by Jose Harris’s article, it is difficult to reach a sensible conclusion on whether or not social welfare policies are a good or bad thing as the effects of these policies not only vary across countries, but also can be muddled by other economic and political factors. Instead we must look at the efficiency and overall benefits of this system, and the criticisms that are leveled at it.

The criticisms of social welfare in Britain are numerous, with many linking the existence of a welfare state with Britain’s decline as a world power after the Second World War and the economic difficulties that persisted over the following decades. In 1979, Thatcher’s Conservative government issued a statement claiming that ‘public expenditure is at the heart of Britain’s present economic difficulties’. It is true that having to keep these welfare policies afloat required substantial amounts of money, and that the government often had to make budget cuts in order to maintain their services. But to lay the blame of economic hardship entirely on social services ignores external economic factors such as the oil price shock in 1973-74. Paul Johnson notes that while in the 1960’s welfare was considered responsible for the growing economy, in the 70’s it was considered an economic burden that needed to be cut back. In times of economic hardship it seems that welfare is an easy scapegoat, with criticisms of it based on preconceived notions regarding laziness of the unemployed and other variables.

Critics of welfare also argue that it reduces the incentive for individuals to work hard by providing unemployment benefits, and that the government’s running of certain services is not as efficient as a private corporation would be in a competitive market. For each of these arguments, it is important to weigh the good against the bad. Granted, the NHS is plagued by long queues for minor ailments and many unemployed use the dole as an excuse not to work. Furthermore, many of the impoverished fall into a ‘Poverty Trap’ as a result of the social security and tax system’s combined efforts. At a certain income level, a slight increase will both raise a person’s tax liability and eliminate their entitlement to benefit, keeping them trapped in their income bracket. These issues plague the social services, and are good arguments for the British welfare state’s inefficiency. But I feel that these issues are outweighed by the benefits offered by Britain’s social services.

Despite the long waits, the formation of the NHS provided health services to those who previously had not been able to afford them. Whereas the previous barrier to healthcare had been high prices, the NHS replaced it with long queues. As a result, the same amount of medical treatment is administered, but to those with urgent ailments rather than deep pockets. Additionally, a 1956 committee tasked to investigate rising health costs in Britain concluded that the NHS was cheaper and more cost effective than alternatives, thus confirming the efficiency and usefulness of the NHS.

As for the argument that unemployment benefits breed idleness and hinder motivation, it is hard to provide concrete evidence supporting this. Thomas’ states in his article that a 1987 survey of econometric studies on unemployment shows a lack of strength in those claiming that welfare services promote laziness, and that the prior beliefs of the researchers color their conclusions. Additionally, between 1968 to 1983, the amount of workers who received benefit payments equal to or greater than 90 percent of their previous income had gone down from one-in-three to one-in-35. The lack of data confirming the laziness of unemployed workers on benefits indicates that while some anecdotal evidence may support the fact that some people abuse the system, it does not cripple the economy like is often argued.

         The overall goal of the welfare state in Britain laid out in the Beveridge Report was to provide a standard level of healthcare, housing, education, and standard of living for even the most destitute of citizens, and in that regard I feel it was successful. This is reflected in the fact that in 1987, only 3 percent of British citizens surveyed desired to reduce taxes and welfare benefits. The overall betterment to British society brought on by the welfare state overrides the negatives inherent in the system, and while I cannot conclude that the welfare state is strictly good or bad, I can conclude that the welfare state that emerged in Britain after the Second World War is an efficient use of the nation’s resources to provide substantial benefit to society. 

The paper is about Poverty. In section one, I defined poverty and led into section two which covered minimum wage laws. Minuimun wage led into section 3, the ideas of a living wage to decrease the gaps between the rich and poor.

Now, I am feeling stuck at section 4. Here is what I need: this section needs to be about 4 pages of double spaced print. Everything must be cited MLA format Following are the guidelines:

 Who is responsible for implementing this policy/program change for a living wage. I am thinking federal and state)

o   Is this a National, State or Local change?

o   Will this be implemented by Government entities (i.e. DHHS, OCFS, etc.) or Non-Governmental ( I am thinking govermental, with business grants as well as Community Action Agencies, local service agencies)

o   How will funds be distributed? (block grants, competitive grants, through existing departmental budgets)

  Will your change be implemented as a permanent or pilot project? Will it be short term in duration or a long term change? (I am thinking long term, with studies and data collection every 3 to 5 yrs)

o   Consider whether your change is retroactive or could have a grandfather clause attached.  Who will oversee project/program changes ( to ensure that the changes are actually made, I am thinking IRS and better business beareus)? The persons implementing it, a government agency, or a third party entity? ( not retroactive, a forward date)

Establish a clear evaluation strategy: How will you determine whether your changes have been successful?  ( I am thinking research and data collection)

o   What are the intended outcomes and how will you know if they have been met? How do you define success? (intentions are to lesson poverty, would define success by cost of living standards and levels of poverty)

o   Who will evaluate this (the entities responsible for implementation or oversight or an independent third party would be IRS, better business, local agenices,)

 Consequences: Present some potential long or short term intended and unintended consequences of this change? long term may cause more poverty by increasing inflation

 so if there is someone here on triond that is up for helping a college student gather referenced information, please help and dont forget the reference links. Truly I would appreciate this help.

The government has this nation in such a high deficit of overspending that cuts need to be made everywhere to keep us out of another impending default in the future. It does seem that government likes to look at cutting programs that help the needy and lowser income families instead cutting programs that  will not take such a toll on the lives of this nation. While some programs only affected the elderly, the loss of the food stamp program will affect, the young, the working class and the elderly as well.

Changes in this nation’s spending do have to made and they need to be made soon to keep this nation thriving.  If the benefits of families receiving food stamps need to go through some changes, they should be changes that will help individuals and families and changes that will make a difference in how the program is run and how how benefits are decided.

Are they to be trusted?

To what degree can you trust them?

Can you trust them with your wife?

Can you trust them with your pretty teenage daughter?

Is your home and valuables in good hands with them?

Public servants are the people who we have elected to be in charge of our country, our laws, our counties and cities. To be in charge of the armed forces in defense of our country, also the ambassadors who go to other countries to represent us on an international basis.

The list also includes the ones hired by those we elected. They are also public servants because they are doing a job for us. The police patrol our streets to keep us safe. The army fights to protect the country, from rebels or another country trying to invade us.

Are they trust worthy, most of the time we hire them then we find out. Will they take a bribe? Will they up hold the law and be non-partial to everyone concerned? If not then we are in real trouble.

Will they make everyone buy a business permit? Will they collect all the fee or taxes due? I seems that every one is not treated the same, in the paper today it was mentioned that a school had not gotten their permit and paid their fee, why who made them exempt.

They are always trying to out do the other guy just so they can be number one at what ever it is. Is your home and valuables safe in the hands of the police, I worry about that, they might be the looters.

Frankly I would not trust any one to take care of my wife or daughter, they are. the most important thing in the world to me so I will be the one looking out for their welfare.

Generally we have to trust them because we elected them. They said “we will do the job you want if you trust us enough to elect us”. So we take them at their word and elect them, then hope they will get the job done.

               The United States of America was once considered at the top of the food chain. Now though, thanks to welfare and the lazy nature that Americans have become accustomed to, our once great nation has become a breeding ground for bottom feeders. The entire development of an enduring existence has always been based on the notion that only the strong survive. By cradling the unmotivated masses to our chest we’ve become weak in the knees, much like every other nation throughout history that has attempted to do the same! I fully understand that there are people who desperately need the help due to weak economy or personal loss of some sort, but the whole system has been taken advantage of for so long, its nearly impossible to distinguish the difference between the temporary needs of a few and the excessive scamming of the corrupt.

The only way to solve a problem of this magnitude at this point would be with the total breakdown of the entire public aid and welfare program, leaving millions of people lost, confused and mentally incapable of providing for their family’s. This approach would most certainly lead to the deaths or at the very least suffering of tens of thousands of people, who actually may need the assistance. And lets not forget the taxpaying citizens who are already suffering by supporting the useless masses. Once the con artists and thieves that are taking advantage of the system lose their cash cow they will be looking for another source of easy income. It will most likely be in the form of another type of scam on the honest and hardworking: Internet schemes, identity theft, insurance fraud and counterfeit lawsuits to name a few. All of which are already happening on a daily basis all over America, and that’s not even mentioning the horrible violent crimes that will also raise in rate!

So it does appear, we have worked ourselves into the proverbial rock and a hard place, and there will be no true winners, no matter which route we decide to take. The one thing I know for sure is that our country has become much to weak to carry the crooked and lazy any longer, it’s time we cut our losses and fight through the rough times to come up with the skills and determination we were all blessed with at birth. It will be hard, it will be sad, many people will suffer, but the only other option will be the falling of an entire nation from the top of the food chain only to become another 3rd world country surviving on violence and the begging of scrap donations from other countries.

Lets just hope the right decisions are made and we find the strength to recover before it’s to late.

D.S. DUBY

United States Mint Police (Photo credit: cliff1066™)

United States Mint Police (Photo credit: cliff1066™)

“Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and cloth a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living on marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation“( United Nations, David Gordon)

The United Nations measures poverty through a set of operational definitions on the scale and magnitude of each dimension included in the definition. A similar, multi-dimensional definition that is also widely used is from the World Bank.

“Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one’s life.” (World Bank)

            Income is a key measure and a widely used reference for the measures of poverty and poverty thresholds. (HHS) Poverty status is defined at household level where households that live on less than $1.25 a day are considered to be poor. Work or employment, on the other hand, may be defined differently across geographies or institutions. As a gold standard, the definition of employment as set out by the International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) is used to determine the reliability of surveys that identify the working poor.

Estimates show that there are 1.4 billion people living in poverty within developing countries.(Ravallion & Chen). Intuitively, employment, which should provide a means of living, should guarantee an individual out of poverty. It should be those inactive in the economy or unemployed who should be living in poverty. Excemptions to the minimum wage and exploitation of immigrant and seasonal labor is an example of the working poor.            Aproximately 1 in 4 workers live near or at the poverty threshold. Most of the working poor hold service type jobs such as child care workers and janitors. ( Karger & Stoesz).

Among 53 countries on which there is available data, 60.4% of those who live below the poverty line and are 15 years old or older are actually employed. The notion here is that it is not unemployment that causes poverty but the other way around. Poverty causes employment because those who are poor cannot afford to be unemployed. (ILO).

In the United sates, there are two federal measurements of poverty, the poverty threshold and the poverty guideline. The poverty threshold is generally used for statistical purposes while the poverty guideline is used for determining eligibility requirements for federally funded programs offered to the poor( Karger & Stoesz). These governemental measurements of poverty are known as the absolute approach.

The private sector also measures poverty, this approach is known as the Relative approach. Relative poverty looks at average wages in a community, the standard of living wages (what do most people have?). The relative approach suggests that if a person/family does not have what others in the community have, then they are relatively poor and in need of assistance.

Another approach to viewing poverty is the basic needs approach. This approach looks at the basic needs such as clean water, education, shelter and health care. In America, the majority of people have these basic needs met, therfor, Americans, genrally, are not poor. This makes a widespread assumption and contributes to growing rate of relative  poverty.

The projects, known as Horner Place, were a low cost housing project; this was a complex of sixteen high rises. Inadequately built, they housed a majority of the minority poor in Chicago. This housing project, that was supposed to provide an adequate home to help the tenants meet their basic needs is, in my opinion, one the first ways that this family was failed by the welfare system.

Like all social welfare programs and projects, low cost and subsidized housing, like Horner Place, come with limited funding. The limited funding meant that the building, even during construction was not built well enough to sustain all of the tenants. During the winter, elevator cables froze, trash chutes were too built too narrow, the cinder block walls were never painted (Koltowitz, 1991). After construction, funding ran out and regular maintenance was not kept throughout the apartments.  The plumbing was not even repaired. The River’s had one tub, no shower and no laundering facilities. The bathtub constantly ran hot water and doubled as a clothes washer (Koltowitz, 1991). Proper running water, trash removal and functioning toilets are, at least in my opinion, basic needs.

The River’s received cash assistance and food stamps. This low amount of “$931… a combination of both welfare and food stamps” (Koltowitz, 1991), was the only income that the River’s family of 8 had. This amount had to pay for groceries (400), burial insurance (80), rent (122), commodities like toilet paper, shampoo, soaps and cosmetics, as well as clothing and food (the last 300), ah let’s not forget, the $8 charge to cash the welfare check (Koltowitz, 1991). Without actually sending a caseworker or investigator to the river’s home, The Department of Public Aid, discontinued their assistance because, on paper, it appeared that Lajoe’s husband still lived in the home and he had income. The low amount that Lajoe received was stopped without any referrals or help of any kind offered to her.

I think that in some way, the social welfare system also failed the river’s family by not helping the family become self-sufficient. There was no effort to educate LaJoe and get her into the workforce, there was no program to help the children with school, there was nothing there for any of them to find ways to cope with the constant violence in the community. There were no referrals to anything? Why? Were there no food pantries, no counseling centers, no job skill classes, no used clothing stores?

One change in the social welfare system that may have helped this family would have been a visiting caseworker. Again, limited funding would be an issue, but I strongly feel that if someone from the agency could have gone to the home once a month or at least once every other month, the agency would have known how the River’s lived. They could have seen where the assistance was spent, and they could have seen where support was needed. If a case worker had been visiting, they would have known that Paul did not live there.

Under the AFDC, families with children received benefits simply because they had children and met the monetary requirements. TANF provides aid, benefits in kind, offers referrals, has a five year lifetime restriction and most importantly, is geared to getting clients back into the workforce. The support to work program is very good at getting people training that can enhance their job skills. With education and through mandated volunteer experience, clients are closer to being self-sufficient. I do think the family would have become self sufficient. LaJoe would have received job skills that could have enabled her to get a job. The family would have received referrals that could help them.

The Robert Taylor Homes are located on the south side of Chicago, 39th street in Bronzeville to be exact.

The Robert Taylor Homes is a place that drug lords reside in and on the first and ninth floor, they use it as drug houses. They use the elevators for transporting the drugs up and down.

Sniper shooters have been a big problem at the Robert Taylor Homes. The sniper shooters almost constantly shoot at other residents who stay at the criminal infested housing project.

Sniper shooters also try to shoot and kill police officers, and abulance attents as well. People have to sleep on the floors and bath tubs at night because sniper shooters get their kicks at shooting at people’s windows.

Residents cannot leave their apartment, because of the sniper shooters, except to go shopping for food.

98% of all residents are on welfare.

Because the elevators are so occupied with the drug lords, the residents have to take the stairs, to the 29th floor and further, because of the occupied drug related elevators.

And it is an understatement that not only are there are sniper shooters, but also drive by shootings and cross fire shootings.

Many innocent people die from accidental shootings. Just last year, 31 people got accidently killed by shootings. 31.

You’re probably wondering, ‘If this project is so dangerous, why do people live here?’ They live here because the rent is cheap and because welfare only gives out $500 dollars per month, people have no choice but live in this violent project so they can have money to live on.

It is sad that this has to be the way it is.

Both physical and military strength can never be a standard of greatness nor does it lies in the custody of immense riches. Alexander of Macedon was a great captor. But no one calls him a great man. Hitler, Taimur Lung, Chenghez Khan, Naidr Shah, – all of them were dread to the world. However none bothers to look upon them as great man. Croesus was the wealthiest man in the world and Midas had infinite gold. But they had never been taken care of as great.

Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), Jesus Christ and Gautam Buddha were neither captors like Alexander or Taimur Lung nor well-off like Croesus or Midas. Even then they are considered with the deepest reverence as great men. What, then, were the traits that they hold that made them so great and popular?

Undoubtedly a great man is a captor, but he captors not only the body but also the heart. This he attains by his love and affection for the creatures of God, particularly men. He makes no difference between man and man. In other words, all men are equal in his eyes.

He realizes for the lack of knowledge and melancholy of man and undertakes himself the goal of alleviating all these. For this he overlooks all selflessness and dedicates himself to the welfare of the human beings in general.

He is extremely prudent and by and large thinks and operates properly. Being a human being he is not entirely free from mistakes. But the mistakes occurred by him are but a small in number. He may be looked upon as nearly faultless in all his declarations and proceedings.

He is unselfish. He has thus, no deliberation for his individual welfare and console. He devours whatsoever he gets and outfits himself plainly and lives a very plain life.

A great man has no arrogance for his own acumen. He recognizes his own littleness and considers himself just like a partisan looking for more and more information.

The life of Hazrat Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is a living instance of what a great man is similar to. He personifies in himself all the excellent traits of a great man. It is for this ground that it has been instructed to all the Muslims to pursue him in all their judgments and activities.

By Muhammad Irfan Zafar

Content Writer