What Have We Learned?

There are a veritable ton of social welfare programs in the United States.  Depending on how far you feel like breaking them down determines how many programs there are. Just under housing there are 12 distinct programs, another 12 are under education and food assistance.  The point is, the system can get a bit hairy the deeper you delve into them.  They provide a plethora of services with the universal goal of helping those who need to be helped the most.

Social welfare programs have existed since the Roman Emperor Augustus began distributing money to citizens who were too poor to buy food.  In the United States welfare programs have existed since we were a collection of colonies ruled over by the British.  They exploded during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency to help the nation recover from the great depression and again under Lyndon Johnson at the start of his war on poverty.  The programs have been changed and changed again throughout that time.

These programs have become an issue of great tension in the United States.  Not because people do not think that the poor or sick or elderly are in not in need of help.  The problem comes from a fundamental disagreement in how much help should be given; who should receive the help; how that aid is delivered, and, to many the biggest question, how much the government is involved.

We have spent the last several weeks looking at how both sides of the political spectrum in the United States looks at this monumentally large, and important, question.  There are plenty of theories and plans, and both sides insist that their ideas are the only way to move towards fixing the underlying problems.

If you look back there appears to be a clear trend forming.  One that shouldn’t be too surprising if you look at it generally, but if you look at the details of the plans and the speed at which it the opinions and policies are changing it can be frightening.

The conservative movement is continually for less government involvement in social welfare.  Most simply want less intervention and to allow the free market and private citizens to determine how much and when they give to those causes.  There are some who call for the abolition of some of the programs and restrictive regulations put on them as well, but those do not appear to be the mainstream opinion.

The liberal movement in the United States, as expected, is all about expanding the programs and covering more people with more services.  They feel that this would allow the people who truly need help to get on, or back on their feet, and start moving forward to help the next group who need it.

It is clear that these programs are sorely needed.  The nation obviously has to have some form of safety net.  Without the expansion and addition of welfare programs the great depression would have continued far longer than it did.  The real question we have to ask ourselves as a country is how much are we willing to give of ourselves to help others, and how do we make sure that we, as the United States of America, continue to fight for what is right for the nation as a whole and for everyone who lives in it.