Partially what's behind the work requirement is a stereotype: that those who need assistance are mostly at fault for that need--not that they had/have to face situations that are atypical for many others (others that might have easily attended, and been expected to attend, college, for instance, or those with a higher level of financial resources and know-how concerning higher education in the first place ). Instead, most social assistance programs seek to undermine long-term solutions through short- and medium-term "responsibility" requirements that aim, almost through a criminalizing mentality, to keep those who need government assistance from "abusing" the system. However, that system does not fully take into account educational prospectives because it sees "dependent" individuals as incapable of such normalcy. In fact, if there were a unified goal around social assistance programs, that might simply be to have clients garner enough employment/income to no longer need assistance. Simply, it is a political game, and the poor get the short end of the stick concerning resources and expectations. The overall impact of this type of thinking is not to allow progressive generations of lower income people to work through poverty and achieve class mobility, but to keep the possibility of self-sufficiency always connected with individual culpability. It is the narrow focus on technical aspects of one's case that hamper obviously beneficial moves. What is needed is a more comprehensive approach that sees personal agency and responsibility as part of a contextual and inter-related system that boosts people up in a long-term sustainable manner. New York City should foster programs that integrate social assistance with education and planning. In this way, we can begin to utilize the tremendous amount of untapped potential and creativity evident in so many, while modeling positive change for other cities and regions in similar situations. By flipping the stereotypical framework, we should begin invest in the poorer of our society for the sake of everyone's future.

I agree with your assessment of the issue; welfare and other forms of governmental assistance programs need to be more forward-thinking where they can. Government programs should be implemented based on the results that they will bring about, and when they are not producing the desired results, then they should be modified so that they will bring about the results that they are meant to. There are far too many people living in poverty and the aim is or should be to reduce that number. Therefore, a governmental assistance program should be oriented towards achieving that end.

Currently, the purpose of governmental assistance programs is to simply provide its recipients with life’s bare necessities on a regular basis. This does not serve to move these individuals out of poverty; rather it encourages and even compels a long-term dependency on the system that is unhealthy for not only the recipients of these programs, but for the rest of society as well. Even when the government gives employment assistance, the jobs are low paying, still keeping people below the poverty line, and generally menial as well, providing people with little or no skills that will facilitate reemployment if they are ever laid off – meaning that, in all likelihood, those laid off will ultimately end up receiving assistance from the government once again. Thus governmental assistance often becomes an endless trap – like a web that binds people in their miserable circumstances rather than a service that assists people in moving forward so that they will have the opportunity to make better lives for themselves.

People who receive governmental assistance should be regarded as everyday individuals who have fallen on hard times and as such need a helping hand to stabilize them again so that they can get back on their feet. They should not only be helped with the essentials, but also assisted in ways that are productive: a means to get a GED and a college degree, job training programs that provide them with viable skills, programs that help them plan for the future, etc. That way they will have access to more stable and higher paying employment.

The circumstances of the Hunter College student and her mother are a little different. Since the mother is disabled, it may be that she’ll have to receive public assistance on a long-term if not permanent basis. However, this cycle need not be repeated. The government should be encouraging this girl’s admirable decision to go to college and strive for a better future for herself rather than crippling her efforts to do so and encouraging her to take a menial job to support her disabled mother. It’s almost as if the government is actually preparing her to live a life of poverty and/or end up on public assistance herself in the future. Why should this girl be condemned to a life of poverty because her mother is disabled? The mother didn’t choose the disability, and the girl did nothing to cause her mother’s disability. The government should be for the people, assisting the disadvantaged so that, as a whole, we can move forward together as a fruitful society. The United States has always been about the “American Dream”…parents doing everything in their power to ensure that their children will have access to the opportunities that they themselves never had or succeed in ways that they themselves never could. There’s nothing just in robbing this family line or any other of this Dream because a parent had a disability or hit a rough patch in life.

I think it is definitely unfair to make kids work to support their families or parents who barely make it not get any help at all. Some sort of system should be implemented in place of this and definitely a law need to be passed. No young person should be expected to give up any extra time outside school or tertiary education to support their families and the adults who are struggling should be offered free education and help with taking care of their families until they are able to live comfortably themselves.

They call this good news? It seems to me that the people who have passed this legislation have no idea of how hard it is for someone to work 35 in a low paying job and continue an education. These are the same individuals that tell us that education is the key to success but at the same time they prevent these individuals from doing so. The students that are forced to do this already come to school with a disadvantage, many lack the funds to buy books, lack internet access, and have to struggle a little bit more than their fellow college students that do have the financial security that just allows them to focus on school. Having to work 35 hours, take care of family issues and perform well in school is a tough task to take on. Many of these individuals will not be able to do all three at their highest potential because they have so many other issues to worry about. Instead of forcing them to work, how about they try to make it easier for them to attend school and not have to worry about the financial situations that they are already suffering from. Lets even out the playing field, between those that can afford and education and those that are struggling to move ahead. It just seems as these individuals are being punished for the situation that they are in.

They call this good news? It seems to me that the people who have passed this legislation have no idea of how hard it is for someone to work 35 in a low paying job and continue an education. These are the same individuals that tell us that education is the key to success but at the same time they prevent these individuals from doing so. The students that are forced to do this already come to school with a disadvantage, many lack the funds to buy books, lack internet access, and have to struggle a little bit more than their fellow college students that do have the financial security that just allows them to focus on school. Having to work 35 hours, take care of family issues and perform well in school is a tough task to take on. Many of these individuals will not be able to do all three at their highest potential because they have so many other issues to worry about. Instead of forcing them to work, how about they try to make it easier for them to attend school and not have to worry about the financial situations that they are already suffering from. Lets even out the playing field, between those that can afford and education and those that are struggling to move ahead. It just seems as these individuals are being punished for the situation that they are in.

The implementation of workfare mandates has had a devastating impact on enrollment in education and training programs. In New York City alone, the policy of assigning all students to the Work Experience Program (WEP) regardless of what other work they are doing or its impact on their ability to continue in school has caused CUNY to lose over 21,000 students.

In my opinion, these welfare recipients, mostly single mothers, have contributed much to this country. They accepted the thirty-five hour per week assignment so that they can avoid the benefit cut for their families; they fought for women's rights to receive higher education while raising children on their own and they raised awareness of serious social problems, like getting inadequate childcare, earning lower than minimum wage, which had been swept under the rug for quite a long time. And we call these single mothers the "toughest women" for a reason. They endured sacrifices that none of us have had to bear.

Moreover, I thought we have to look into the historical role of welfare in helping women free themselves from domestic abuse and children from child abuse which has long been obscured. It is important to analyze the interconnection between domestic violence against women, poverty, and welfare cutbacks. From what I understand, while poverty contributes to abuse, so does abuse perpetuate poverty.

America has a very ugly past and present in many ways. We have oppressed, demoralized, institutionalized, and degraded, segregated, stereotyped, and persecuted millions of persons over the years. What is unfortunate is that with all our advances in business and technology... there are still single mothers living on the streets, starving with their children. There are still foreign workers being paid much less than minimum wage. There are still persons living with mental illness being drugged and institutionalized. The rich are still getting richer, as they exploit the poor and working classes.