Do Governments And Charities C Essay, Research Paper
Derek Fengler
Discrimination, Gender, and the Economy
4-9-01
Do Governments and Charities cause Poverty?
Not being able to have the three necessities of life; food, clothing, and shelter. That is what many would consider to be poverty. What causes poverty to affect 11 million people nationwide? What is it, that makes poverty so hard for families to recover from? Theresa Funiciello and others believe, Governments and Charities are the reason.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted the astonishing consistency with which middle class professionals improved the condition of lower class groups by devising schemes that would first improve their own condition. This resulted in middle class people making money, then passing the leftovers on to poverty stricken people. Funiciello explains that the resulting leftovers are far too little to ever help a family out of poverty. I agree with Moynihan, middle class professionals often do make sure they are benefited themselves before the poor. I also agree with Funiciello, that the meager 814.20 dollars per month maximum available to a mother with five children in New York City, is far from sufficient.
Are these the real reasons we have poverty the way we do today? I believe these are just contributing factors, not the cause. In order to ever remedy this crisis, we must look at the root of the problem. For example, we will look at a single mother with five children and only a high school education. The mother has just separated from her husband, and has kept the kids. The mother should be receiving child support from her ex-husband. If she is not, strict laws on paying child support could make him pay. This, along with the assistance of programs like AFDC contributing money would be enough to suffice.
I feel the real cause of poverty is education. If everyone in this country had a decent high school education and at least two years of specialized schooling, there would be no such thing as poverty. Everyone in the United States would be educated enough in order to find a job that pays them , to at least live with all of the three necessities of life. I am not saying get rid of welfare programs like AFDC. Programs like these are essential for a family that is trying to get through tough times, regardless of the amount of education, however, if we ever want to reduce the number of people who live in poverty, we need to focus our time and money into education, not raising welfare funding. Raising the amount of money given to welfare is just a quick fix. Lets use the example of the mother with five children. If she would have had a college education she would have only needed programs like AFDC for a short period of time. This would have also fixed the problem that the amount of money given is hardly sufficient. If people are only on programs like AFDC for short periods of time more money can be given, to help through a transition, rather than a life. For example, if families received welfare for only half of the amount of time they do now that 814.20 dollars per month given to a family of six could be doubled. The answer is simple, increase money spent on welfare programs now,
Fengler 2
and the problem will be better for a short time. Or we could fix it the right way. Increase the money spent on education, and we can keep spending the amount we do currently on welfare, and spend it the way is was meant, to help people through tough times in there life. Poverty is a vicious cycle. In order for the growth in the amount of people on welfare to be curbed, education, not spending more on welfare needs, to become a priority in our country.