"Has been a lifesaver so many times!"
- Catherine Rampell, student @ University of Washington
"Exactly the help I needed."
- Jennifer Hawes, student @ San Jose State
"The best place for brainstorming ideas."
- Michael Majchrowicz, student @ University of Kentucky
In the recent February article of the Los Angeles
Times, Clinton has announced to go on with a plan to help
people of welfare. Clinton challenged corporate bosses five
months ago to take people in from welfare and trained them.
One of the main contributors of the project is a chief
executive officer of the Monsanto Ca., the nation's fourth
largest chemical maker. Clinton singled out the Monsanto
company and other companies for helping out welfare workers.
Monsanto has hired five recipient and found almost twenty
more jobs for others.
Under the new laws of the welfare reforms, the able
body workers should work within the two years of recieving
benefits. Some of the good things out of this plan is that
by the year 2005, only 14% of jobs will be done by more of
the dependent poor people. This is bad because 46% of aid
recipients had not completed high school or earned a General
Equivalency Diploma. The ability to absorb more welfare
recipients is limited by the high- technology chemical,
agricultural, fiber and pharmaceutical development and
manufacturing. These workers would have limited skills.
Monsanto is highly protecteive of the privacy of its special
new hires. The new employees are hired to fill a variety of
clerical and light general- labor positions. They will not
be identified as the company's welfare-to-work initiative.
The possible short-term effect this would have on
society is that people, on welfare, would be able to work
and get paid for it. This will allow them to be able to
build finance of their own that they will be able to help
them with their lives. The long-term effect, though it
seemed good for the people, would be bad for everyone else
who weren't on welfare. This would be because the people
working off welfare would really be working off the tax
payers money. So, the people who aren't living off welfare
would be paying higher taxes and the people who are living
on welfare would be paying less taxes.
Education is an important factor in society today.
Without education, we wouldn't be able to boost our
technology. Boosting the technology would then help us in
the medical field, help us build better houses that are more
durable to earthquakes, etc. I think that we should spend
more of the budget on education.
If we spended more on education, we would be able to
get more, better teacher to teach our children. With more
teachers on the field, we would be able to teach more
students than normal. To help the teachers out in there
teaching, money would be put in to buy new, improved, and
revised version of books.
Thought this seems good and all, the short- term effect
would be that this would only be able to happen for a
certain amount of time. This is because the people would be
spending a lot of money on education, so the taxes would
rise which is bad. In the long run, though, with the
increase in money for education, we would be able to learn a
lot more. In time, we would be able to find the cures for
the deadly diseases that is in society today.
I believe that all parts of society would benefit from
this because of the possible cause that will happen when we
are able to treat AIDS the same way we treat the common
cold. The only disadvantage is that of the money. I don't
really think people would agree with the budget becuase they
would want to keep the money for themselves. In general, if
we spent more on education than on welfare, we would be able
to think of better ways to improve the way we live and build
a better place where people can work and live peacefully.
View Full Essay
Monsanto, Welfare economics, Welfare, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Welfare dependency, Hidden welfare state
More Free Essays Like This