Poverty In The United States
Throughout the last century, poverty has been a major issue in the society of the United States. The government has tried to help those who are living in poverty through numerous acts including Franklin D. Roosevelt's plans to get the country out of the depression or the welfare reform in 1996. Although the government has sought to ease poverty, mainly by creating government anti poverty programs, their methods are in fact ineffective. The Federal governments anti poverty programs as a majority is not working, the programs may very well work for a few people out of thousands, but that is unquestionably not enough. Furthermore the government's methods to eliminate poverty have caused people to become dependent on government anti poverty
…show more content…
programs, such as welfare. Moreover it is even harder today to ascend in American society than it has ever been before.
Literary Review In regards to the issues of poverty and welfare there are many debates on how to eliminate poverty and increase the effectiveness of welfare. The methods debated include cutting benefits to able bodied workers, creating better jobs for those on welfare, and increasing wages. One side of this debate argues that we must eliminate the reliance on welfare by cutting out benefits for those who are able to work, also limiting healthcare benefits to children, and promoting private charities to help out the poor in their community (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). One of the main arguments for this perspective is that the United States has spent billions of dollars on welfare over the past twenty years or so, and it has done very little to help the poverty situation (www.publicagenda.org). Also private charities and communities can help the poor better than the government is capable of doing (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). Another argument for this approach is that welfare creates disincentive to work which, in turn, creates a person to become dependent on welfare, people with this view believe that those on welfare need to become more self- sufficient (www.publicagenda.org). The opposition to those who believe on cutting benefits to those who are able to work argues that welfare cuts will not save the United States a sufficient amount of money. Also they believe it is morally wrong to cut welfare because it will harm the children of the parents who are on welfare, furthermore removing support to unskilled workers would hurt them because they can't find decent jobs that will let them live out of poverty (www.publicagenda.org). Among those who debate on this topic, some people argue that a solution can be found by devising a plan in which those who are on welfare can get better jobs. Those who believe that this would work argue that education and job training are the best and least expensive ways to help the poverty issue, also if there are not enough decent paying jobs there is no way people can come out of poverty (www.publicagenda.org). On the other hand those who oppose this argument believe that companies would be forced to lay off workers therefore creating more people in poverty (Increasing Minimum Wage is Counterproductive). Those who argue this also believe that the best way to solve this problem is for the people rely on motivation and hard work instead of welfare (A Lack of Individual Responsibility Causes Poverty). Also those who consider that finding a way for those who are on poverty to find better jobs would help curb poverty believe that the cause of poverty today is the shortage of jobs with livable wages (www.publicagenda.org). This argument states that one way to ease the poverty is by subsidizing day care, job training, and public transportation therefore allowing people to work. Also expanding job training programs so that people can learn skills for decent jobs will help with poverty. This side also debates that the government should raise minimum wage so that full time workers receive more than poverty level income (www.publicagenda.org). There are also those who appose the other side of this debate, they argue the fact that if there are not enough well paying jobs then it is useless to expect people to support themselves. Also education and job training are the best and least expensive procedures in dealing with poverty and they are also the least expensive (www.publicagenda.org).
President Bush also had an opinion on this argument which focuses on the involvement of the community through charities and neighborhood groups (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). George W. Bush argues that "supporting the good works of charities and neighborhood healers and empowering communities to meet their own needs and to care for their own members" is a way in which we as Americans can combat poverty (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). President Bush goes on to argue that in every city there are mentors and tutors who are part of neighborhood groups and charities "who will give shelter to battered women and children, who comforts the aged and helps the dying, and who walks into gunfire to end gang wars" (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). Bush states that these people do not lack the courage, commitment, or "spiritual strength" to help out in their communities; instead he declares that these people do not have the resources to do so (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). President Bush then went on to propose the community solutions act which proposes "not-itemizing federal taxpayers to joint itemize in deducting their charitable contributions," which Bush believes will encourage more people to donate to charities all across America, "The Community Solution Act also expands charitable choice which states that faith-based organizations should be able to compete for government funds without being forced to hide their religious character." (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty).
Argument The government's efforts to reduce poverty and homelessness have created a situation in which the poor are becoming dependent on welfare. By rewarding people for being poor welfare programs reduce the motivation to work. Children raised in families that receive welfare assistance are themselves three times more likely than other children to be on welfare when they become adults. This dependency is clear proof that the welfare program, although it is helping a select few, welfare is not helping the majority of those on welfare to become more self-sufficient, instead it is keeping those who are in poverty at the same level.
One example that shows a dependency on government aid is that of a recent study which found that higher welfare benefits increased the number of women who left the labor force and enrolled in welfare. "A 50 percent increase in monthly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp benefit levels led to a 75 percent increase in both the number of women enrolling in AFDC and in the number of years spent on AFDC. The percentage of children receiving AFDC is higher in states with the highest AFDC payments and lower in states with the lowest AFDC payments" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). Once again this shows the dependency that the government's welfare program has created by showing how the states with the highest paying Aid to Families with Dependent Children also have the highest percentage of children receiving payments, therefore creating a dependency on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.
More evidence proving that governments anti poverty programs create a culture of dependency can be seen by looking at the results of the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiment. "For every $100 of extra welfare given to low-income persons, the earned income of the recipients fell by $80. Welfare reduces the probability that a poor person or family will leave poverty in any given year by about 60 percent. The chances of rising above the poverty level are two and one-half times greater if an individual or family does not receive welfare. At any one time, more than half of welfare recipients have been on welfare for ten years" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). The experiments show that by increasing the welfare benefits it has a negative effect on the amount of people who are in the labor force. This experiment also shows that by increasing the welfare people were less likely to work, causing them to become dependent on welfare for income instead of earning an income at a job.
The current welfare system has penalties for those who are married, therefore creating a state where women are not marrying, yet having children so that they are able to receive welfare benefits. "When the Great Society was launched in 1965, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 25 percent; today, it is 66 percent. If current trends continue, the black illegitimate birth rate will reach 75 percent in ten years. Thirty years ago, one in every 40 white children was born to an unmarried mother; today, it is one in five" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). "The percentage of welfare recipients living in female-headed households increased from 29 percent in 1964 to 61 percent in 1976" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). This shows how now, more than ever, women are having children without getting married.
Another person who argues this is the Cato institutes Michael Tanner who states, "An even larger problem with the welfare state is that it disrupts social bonds." Tanner told the United States Senate that "welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families" (Government Programs Have not Helped the Poor). Michael Tanner also affirms that "nearly 20 percent of daughters from families that were "highly dependent" on welfare became "highly dependent" themselves, whereas only 3 percent of daughters from non-AFDC households became "highly dependent" on welfare" (Welfare Should be Eliminated). This is yet another example of how the government's anti poverty programs, including welfare, have created a culture of dependency for those who are recipients. Not only has the welfare program failed because of the dependency it has created but, in fact it has failed in other aspects such as government spending. Although welfare requirements included recipients to work for benefits the number of those who are working have diminished. Also the welfare program has cost more than triple the expected cost Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). "Less than one percent of the welfare population is working today. And the program has cost us $10 billion more than expected--$13 billion instead of $3 billion. At the time of enactment, it was predicted that the number of families on AFDC would not reach five million until late 1998. In fact, that milestone was reached in early 1993." Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). "Americans were told that the 1988 reforms required most welfare recipients to work for benefits, by 1992 only one percent of all AFDC parents was actually required to enroll in workfare in exchange for welfare benefits" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). This shows how the welfare program, in a whole, is ineffective because only a fraction of those receiving benefits actually work and the welfare program has cost us 10 billion dollars more than expected. Furthermore, experts are proving that welfare has failed due to the massive amount of government spending which has not changed the level of poverty in the United States. "Writing in 1994 for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), John C. Goodman, Gerald W. Reed, and Peter S. Ferrara pointed out that, since 1965 we have spent $5 trillion on the War on poverty, measured in 1992 constant dollars. Yet the poverty rate is higher today than it was the year the War on poverty began." "According to this NCPA study, one reason the War on Poverty isn't being won is that "most of the money we spend doesn't go to poor people. It goes to non poor people who work in the welfare-poverty industry" (Government Programs Have not Helped the Poor). This is yet another instance in which welfare has failed because of the amount of money spent on welfare. United States has spent 5 trillion dollars on the war on poverty yet the poverty rate is higher today than the day the war on poverty started in 1965. Another example of how welfare has failed as a whole is, again, the Cato Institute's Michel Tanner. Tanner declares, "since 1973, poverty has actually increased, despite the continued growth in social welfare spending" (Welfare Should be Eliminated). Therefore showing how welfare has indeed failed although the government has been trying to curb poverty since the war on poverty began in 1965. One of the reasons why poverty levels are not going down is due to the fact that in the United States today, it is harder to ascend in society than ever before.
Former assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, Peter Edelman, argues that "inequality in the distribution of wealth is a major cause of poverty," he also adds that the problem is getting worse (Capitalism Causes Poverty). "Twenty years ago, the wealthiest one percent had as much income as the poorest 20 percent of the population; today, that one percent controls as much wealth as the poorest 35 percent" (Capitalism Causes Poverty). This is one illustration of how it is harder today for those in poverty to rise higher in society because the wealthiest people control a substantially larger amount of money than they did before. Also the article from the Economist, Meritocracy in America, shows this uneven balance in wealth by stating "In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth" (Meritocracy in America). The article also declares that the top 1% has not controlled this much wealth since before the depression (Meritocracy in America). Once again this shows how it has become incredibly hard for people to achieve a state of living above the poverty level. More evidence to support this argument, once again, comes from the article Meritocracy in America. The article proclaims that between 1979 and 2000 "the income of households in the lowest fifth grew by 6.4% while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth" (Meritocracy in America). Again this shows how hard it is to ascend to a higher level in society. A study was done by Thomas hertz, an economist at American University in Washington DC. He studied families over
32 years and found that it was harder for those born into the bottom class, to rise to the top or even middle class. He found that "42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started- at the bottom. Another 24% moved up slightly to the next-to-bottom group. Only 6% made it to the top group. On the other hand, 37% of those born into the top fifth remained there, whereas barely 7% of those born into the top 20% ended up in the bottom fifth. A person born into the top fifth is over five times as likely to end up at the top as a person born into the bottom fifth" (Meritocracy in America). This evidence clearly shows how the distribution of wealth is contributing to the poverty in the United States. Because of the fact that there is less money out there for those who are in poverty it has become harder for them to climb out of poverty and live a stable life. Not only have the wealthiest people been increasing the gap between the poor and the prosperous; the same thing has been happening in the business world. According to a study of the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives, "thirty years ago the average real annual compensation was 1.3 million dollars: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is 37.5 million dollars: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker" (Meritocracy in America). These facts demonstrate to us that the immense gap between the earnings of the high powered business official and the average worker have created a state in which the rich get wealthier while the poor are left with exceptionally small amount of the money.
Taken as a whole, the government has sought to ease the poverty in the United States through various forms of anti poverty programs. Although they have done so, the evidence shows that their methods were ineffective, creating a situation in which people have become dependent on government aid. Moreover, since the depression the distribution of wealth between the top fifth and the bottom fifth has not been this far apart. I will conclude with a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who warned the country about dependency to government aid. "The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America" (Welfare and the Culture of Poverty).
programs, such as welfare. Moreover it is even harder today to ascend in American society than it has ever been before.
Literary Review In regards to the issues of poverty and welfare there are many debates on how to eliminate poverty and increase the effectiveness of welfare. The methods debated include cutting benefits to able bodied workers, creating better jobs for those on welfare, and increasing wages. One side of this debate argues that we must eliminate the reliance on welfare by cutting out benefits for those who are able to work, also limiting healthcare benefits to children, and promoting private charities to help out the poor in their community (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). One of the main arguments for this perspective is that the United States has spent billions of dollars on welfare over the past twenty years or so, and it has done very little to help the poverty situation (www.publicagenda.org). Also private charities and communities can help the poor better than the government is capable of doing (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). Another argument for this approach is that welfare creates disincentive to work which, in turn, creates a person to become dependent on welfare, people with this view believe that those on welfare need to become more self- sufficient (www.publicagenda.org). The opposition to those who believe on cutting benefits to those who are able to work argues that welfare cuts will not save the United States a sufficient amount of money. Also they believe it is morally wrong to cut welfare because it will harm the children of the parents who are on welfare, furthermore removing support to unskilled workers would hurt them because they can't find decent jobs that will let them live out of poverty (www.publicagenda.org). Among those who debate on this topic, some people argue that a solution can be found by devising a plan in which those who are on welfare can get better jobs. Those who believe that this would work argue that education and job training are the best and least expensive ways to help the poverty issue, also if there are not enough decent paying jobs there is no way people can come out of poverty (www.publicagenda.org). On the other hand those who oppose this argument believe that companies would be forced to lay off workers therefore creating more people in poverty (Increasing Minimum Wage is Counterproductive). Those who argue this also believe that the best way to solve this problem is for the people rely on motivation and hard work instead of welfare (A Lack of Individual Responsibility Causes Poverty). Also those who consider that finding a way for those who are on poverty to find better jobs would help curb poverty believe that the cause of poverty today is the shortage of jobs with livable wages (www.publicagenda.org). This argument states that one way to ease the poverty is by subsidizing day care, job training, and public transportation therefore allowing people to work. Also expanding job training programs so that people can learn skills for decent jobs will help with poverty. This side also debates that the government should raise minimum wage so that full time workers receive more than poverty level income (www.publicagenda.org). There are also those who appose the other side of this debate, they argue the fact that if there are not enough well paying jobs then it is useless to expect people to support themselves. Also education and job training are the best and least expensive procedures in dealing with poverty and they are also the least expensive (www.publicagenda.org).
President Bush also had an opinion on this argument which focuses on the involvement of the community through charities and neighborhood groups (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). George W. Bush argues that "supporting the good works of charities and neighborhood healers and empowering communities to meet their own needs and to care for their own members" is a way in which we as Americans can combat poverty (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). President Bush goes on to argue that in every city there are mentors and tutors who are part of neighborhood groups and charities "who will give shelter to battered women and children, who comforts the aged and helps the dying, and who walks into gunfire to end gang wars" (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). Bush states that these people do not lack the courage, commitment, or "spiritual strength" to help out in their communities; instead he declares that these people do not have the resources to do so (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty). President Bush then went on to propose the community solutions act which proposes "not-itemizing federal taxpayers to joint itemize in deducting their charitable contributions," which Bush believes will encourage more people to donate to charities all across America, "The Community Solution Act also expands charitable choice which states that faith-based organizations should be able to compete for government funds without being forced to hide their religious character." (Government Support of Faith Based Initiatives Can Help Reduce Poverty).
Argument The government's efforts to reduce poverty and homelessness have created a situation in which the poor are becoming dependent on welfare. By rewarding people for being poor welfare programs reduce the motivation to work. Children raised in families that receive welfare assistance are themselves three times more likely than other children to be on welfare when they become adults. This dependency is clear proof that the welfare program, although it is helping a select few, welfare is not helping the majority of those on welfare to become more self-sufficient, instead it is keeping those who are in poverty at the same level.
One example that shows a dependency on government aid is that of a recent study which found that higher welfare benefits increased the number of women who left the labor force and enrolled in welfare. "A 50 percent increase in monthly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp benefit levels led to a 75 percent increase in both the number of women enrolling in AFDC and in the number of years spent on AFDC. The percentage of children receiving AFDC is higher in states with the highest AFDC payments and lower in states with the lowest AFDC payments" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). Once again this shows the dependency that the government's welfare program has created by showing how the states with the highest paying Aid to Families with Dependent Children also have the highest percentage of children receiving payments, therefore creating a dependency on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.
More evidence proving that governments anti poverty programs create a culture of dependency can be seen by looking at the results of the Seattle and Denver Income Maintenance Experiment. "For every $100 of extra welfare given to low-income persons, the earned income of the recipients fell by $80. Welfare reduces the probability that a poor person or family will leave poverty in any given year by about 60 percent. The chances of rising above the poverty level are two and one-half times greater if an individual or family does not receive welfare. At any one time, more than half of welfare recipients have been on welfare for ten years" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). The experiments show that by increasing the welfare benefits it has a negative effect on the amount of people who are in the labor force. This experiment also shows that by increasing the welfare people were less likely to work, causing them to become dependent on welfare for income instead of earning an income at a job.
The current welfare system has penalties for those who are married, therefore creating a state where women are not marrying, yet having children so that they are able to receive welfare benefits. "When the Great Society was launched in 1965, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 25 percent; today, it is 66 percent. If current trends continue, the black illegitimate birth rate will reach 75 percent in ten years. Thirty years ago, one in every 40 white children was born to an unmarried mother; today, it is one in five" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). "The percentage of welfare recipients living in female-headed households increased from 29 percent in 1964 to 61 percent in 1976" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). This shows how now, more than ever, women are having children without getting married.
Another person who argues this is the Cato institutes Michael Tanner who states, "An even larger problem with the welfare state is that it disrupts social bonds." Tanner told the United States Senate that "welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families" (Government Programs Have not Helped the Poor). Michael Tanner also affirms that "nearly 20 percent of daughters from families that were "highly dependent" on welfare became "highly dependent" themselves, whereas only 3 percent of daughters from non-AFDC households became "highly dependent" on welfare" (Welfare Should be Eliminated). This is yet another example of how the government's anti poverty programs, including welfare, have created a culture of dependency for those who are recipients. Not only has the welfare program failed because of the dependency it has created but, in fact it has failed in other aspects such as government spending. Although welfare requirements included recipients to work for benefits the number of those who are working have diminished. Also the welfare program has cost more than triple the expected cost Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). "Less than one percent of the welfare population is working today. And the program has cost us $10 billion more than expected--$13 billion instead of $3 billion. At the time of enactment, it was predicted that the number of families on AFDC would not reach five million until late 1998. In fact, that milestone was reached in early 1993." Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). "Americans were told that the 1988 reforms required most welfare recipients to work for benefits, by 1992 only one percent of all AFDC parents was actually required to enroll in workfare in exchange for welfare benefits" (Government Anti Poverty Programs Worsen Poverty). This shows how the welfare program, in a whole, is ineffective because only a fraction of those receiving benefits actually work and the welfare program has cost us 10 billion dollars more than expected. Furthermore, experts are proving that welfare has failed due to the massive amount of government spending which has not changed the level of poverty in the United States. "Writing in 1994 for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), John C. Goodman, Gerald W. Reed, and Peter S. Ferrara pointed out that, since 1965 we have spent $5 trillion on the War on poverty, measured in 1992 constant dollars. Yet the poverty rate is higher today than it was the year the War on poverty began." "According to this NCPA study, one reason the War on Poverty isn't being won is that "most of the money we spend doesn't go to poor people. It goes to non poor people who work in the welfare-poverty industry" (Government Programs Have not Helped the Poor). This is yet another instance in which welfare has failed because of the amount of money spent on welfare. United States has spent 5 trillion dollars on the war on poverty yet the poverty rate is higher today than the day the war on poverty started in 1965. Another example of how welfare has failed as a whole is, again, the Cato Institute's Michel Tanner. Tanner declares, "since 1973, poverty has actually increased, despite the continued growth in social welfare spending" (Welfare Should be Eliminated). Therefore showing how welfare has indeed failed although the government has been trying to curb poverty since the war on poverty began in 1965. One of the reasons why poverty levels are not going down is due to the fact that in the United States today, it is harder to ascend in society than ever before.
Former assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, Peter Edelman, argues that "inequality in the distribution of wealth is a major cause of poverty," he also adds that the problem is getting worse (Capitalism Causes Poverty). "Twenty years ago, the wealthiest one percent had as much income as the poorest 20 percent of the population; today, that one percent controls as much wealth as the poorest 35 percent" (Capitalism Causes Poverty). This is one illustration of how it is harder today for those in poverty to rise higher in society because the wealthiest people control a substantially larger amount of money than they did before. Also the article from the Economist, Meritocracy in America, shows this uneven balance in wealth by stating "In 2001 the top 1% of households earned 20% of all income and held 33.4% of all net worth" (Meritocracy in America). The article also declares that the top 1% has not controlled this much wealth since before the depression (Meritocracy in America). Once again this shows how it has become incredibly hard for people to achieve a state of living above the poverty level. More evidence to support this argument, once again, comes from the article Meritocracy in America. The article proclaims that between 1979 and 2000 "the income of households in the lowest fifth grew by 6.4% while that of households in the top fifth grew by 70%. The family income of the top 1% grew by 184%. Back in 1979 the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%; by 2000 the income of the top 1% had risen to 189 times that of the bottom fifth" (Meritocracy in America). Again this shows how hard it is to ascend to a higher level in society. A study was done by Thomas hertz, an economist at American University in Washington DC. He studied families over
32 years and found that it was harder for those born into the bottom class, to rise to the top or even middle class. He found that "42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started- at the bottom. Another 24% moved up slightly to the next-to-bottom group. Only 6% made it to the top group. On the other hand, 37% of those born into the top fifth remained there, whereas barely 7% of those born into the top 20% ended up in the bottom fifth. A person born into the top fifth is over five times as likely to end up at the top as a person born into the bottom fifth" (Meritocracy in America). This evidence clearly shows how the distribution of wealth is contributing to the poverty in the United States. Because of the fact that there is less money out there for those who are in poverty it has become harder for them to climb out of poverty and live a stable life. Not only have the wealthiest people been increasing the gap between the poor and the prosperous; the same thing has been happening in the business world. According to a study of the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives, "thirty years ago the average real annual compensation was 1.3 million dollars: 39 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is 37.5 million dollars: over 1,000 times the pay of the average worker" (Meritocracy in America). These facts demonstrate to us that the immense gap between the earnings of the high powered business official and the average worker have created a state in which the rich get wealthier while the poor are left with exceptionally small amount of the money.
Taken as a whole, the government has sought to ease the poverty in the United States through various forms of anti poverty programs. Although they have done so, the evidence shows that their methods were ineffective, creating a situation in which people have become dependent on government aid. Moreover, since the depression the distribution of wealth between the top fifth and the bottom fifth has not been this far apart. I will conclude with a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who warned the country about dependency to government aid. "The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America" (Welfare and the Culture of Poverty).