1.Describe the history, current structures and issues of social welfare policies and the major ideological themes that underlie them. (Program Obj. 5; EPAS 2.1.8)
Through this course I learned that many of the current issues we see as a society stem from the structures that we create. We discussed how politically speaking; parties often create even more issues by not being able to create a program that both sides agree upon. During these discussions we talked about various political programs or bills that have been created in hopes of creating relief to many of the issues discussed in class, like poverty. Throughout the history of social welfare policies are society has seen, we discussed that even though many policies or programs have been created that because of the political spectrum of conservatives and liberals, many of these things have failed, or not lasted long enough to see results.
The reason for this that we talked about throughout the course is that conservatives generally have the idea that there is an individual responsibility versus society’s responsibility to take care of them. Whereas liberals generally feel that our government should help individuals because they can not help themselves. For this reason political officials struggle to find effective ways to benefit society in terms of programs and policies.
2. Engage in policy practices that advance social and economic justice. (Program Obj. 5; EPAS 2.1.4)
In this course, I think we really learned about how advocacy was an important skill in social work. I learned that even though I should be aware of the policies that effect my clients, I do not have to create a policy to make it important. I can simply advocate to raise awareness for a policy or even a group of people seeking a policy change or something. During our project my group participated in an advocacy project in which we raised awareness for an act that we felt was something that would benefit many, we had people sign letters that could be sent to their Senators in support of the act.
Through various readings and discussions throughout the course I learned many different ways that I can participate in advocating for my clients or the group of clients I might be working with. By raising awareness for a particular social or economic justice issue, I can very well be apart of bringing about change for my clients.
3. Apply social work values, standards and ethics in analyzing and influencing policy formulation, implementation and advocacy. (Program Obj. 5; EPAS 2.1.8, 2.1.2)
Before this class I did not really pay too much attention to policy. But now I know that it is important to be aware of the policies that are being made or proposes because they could have and affect on whatever population I choose to work with. I am suppose to advocate for my clients, and I wont be able to do that if I do not know what is going on within the political world.
The Social Work Code of Ethics also says that social workers need to be competent. I would think that if I am unaware of policies that have an affect on my clients then I would be incompetent and ineffective in working with them. So I learned from this class that even though the political world overall scares me and I want to stay away from it. I need to pay attention to what is going on so I can be effective in assisting my clients.
4. Analyze and apply the results of policy research in contexts relevant to social service delivery. (Program Obj. 6, 2; EPAS 2.1.8, 2.1.6, 2.1.9)
For the project I worked on for the class, my group and myself had to research about our population and issues relevant to them, as well as things that are going on to help them and raise awareness for their oppression. This required us to look at past policies that were made and current policies that have been made. Through this research we were able to know more about what was going on with our population and we felt more passionate about seeing our Act supported.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Policy Blog over "The Tipping Point"
Prompt: Using one of the books, Fast Food Nation; Nickel and Dimed; The Tipping Point; or Three Cups of Tea as a stimulus, project what you believe social welfare provision will need to look like in the next 25 years in the United States.
In the book The Tipping Point the author Malcolm Gladwell talks about change and what it takes to truly make change happen. Mainly he mentions the kind of people it takes for change of any kind to occur and to make change lasting and “sticky”. This book has so many examples of where we as a society have been affected by all different levels of change because the idea was heard by a certain person who has the capability of spreading the word better than your average person. I believe that things don’t change overnight. Change is a process, it takes time, however after reading this book, I was convinced that society could see change happen quicker if the right kind of people got involved. Much like how in his book, Gladwell discussed that if these special social salesmen personality type people were not happy or satisfied with a certain product or idea, then most likely the product or idea would not go very far because these people are the people responsible for creating a word of mouth epidemic and making it have a more lasting effect. They are the people who tell everyone about something they think is fantastic. They are the ones who go about selling something to the public. As a society we need to find these people and get them on board with ideas about social welfare over the next 25 years. I hear a lot of people share lots of beautiful hopes and dreams for our future, but I think in order to see these things come true, we need to come up with a better way of making them attainable, in my opinion that would start by more people being a little more realistic about how they go about changing the world. If we as a society truly desire to see change, then we need to take some smaller steps to get there.
Malcolm Gladwell in his book presents three things that he believes are needed to see a lasting effect brought on in social trends. These three things are “the law of the few”, “the stickiness factor”, and “the power of context”. The first one is where you see the power of the people. Although we all can talk and have ideas, there are some people in the world that are just gifted at talking to others, these people, know more than anyone else, they are more persuasive than anyone else and they are also the kind of person who will remember every new place or new person they encounter. These are the kind of people who Gladwell says are responsible for the idea of the word of mouth epidemic. The second one is the idea that if we want to see something be successful and make it last it has to stick. It has to be something that the public is going to want to keep around. By having the people from the first one, the “salesmen” as Gladwell referred to them as ideas become stickier, because they are normally in tune with what the public wants. The third one focuses on the importance that the surroundings have on a social trend or movement. I think that when trying to determine how to see change over the next 25 years these three things will be important to remember.
One thing that so many people are concerned about seeing eliminated, is poverty. The problem is that poverty is not going to just vanish overnight. Currently as Americans, it seems like our plan to eradicate poverty is to send our aid to other countries that have more poverty than we do. Why has this become the cure for the poverty epidemic? Why does it seem that it is more important to send aid to other countries rather than try to see change in our own system right here in America? The answer is actually simple I think. People, not just any people though, certain people who have the ability to influence millions. Celebrities, I believe that when it comes to having a sticky idea, celebrities are the stickiest way to get word out to the public. Organizations, groups, social movements flock to celebrities and try to persuade them to join their cause because they know that these celebrities are considered influential not only in the U.S, but in the world. This is what has happened. This is how our attention is drawn into eliminating global poverty, because a celebrity spokesperson that many consider a role model has told us that we should. Celebrities are the salesmen of our nation.
I think the idea of having these influential people join a cause and urge others to join is brilliant, however the causes that we are urged to support seem to all be more on a global context and they are not working because they are not realistic. We are urged to donate money to other countries to stop world hunger, when we ourselves are trying to figure out where our next meal is coming from. We are urged to send a Christmas gift to an orphan in another country because they will not a Christmas when we ourselves have so many children that will not have a Christmas either. We are urged to send resources to Africa, because their people are homeless and dying when we have homeless right down our street who are also dying. Where we have missed the mark is with Gladwell’s third rule, “the power of context”. Currently America is going through an economic crisis, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, we are. More and more families are forced into poverty every day, and we are not being effective in providing for them. How can we be expected to donate money to other countries, when there is no one donating money to our country to eliminate poverty? This is why there has not been a change in global poverty, because although the message is sticky and the spokesperson is influential and can persuade some, the context is all wrong. We can’t help others if we don’t stop for a second and help our own.
Let’s get these celebrities to join a cause that is even closer to home than Africa, let’s get them to consider America as a cause. I think that if want to see reform brought to our current welfare system then we are going to have to raise more awareness for the epidemic of poverty right here in America and I think we are going to need influential people to help do that. Anyone can sit and talk about how flawed our welfare system is and how ineffective we are at helping the poor and the homeless, but unless that person has the ability to influence other’s to speak up and take action, all it is, is talk. If we can somehow get these influential people to start raising more awareness on national poverty and urging people to speak up about their conditions, then we might be able to see more government officials take interest in creating reform in our social welfare system. The welfare system is not something that can just fix itself, it is not something that we can just sit back and hope improves. Let’s quit campaigning to send aid to other countries and campaign for more aid for our own country. America needs to pay more attention to its own poverty before we try to address the poverty in other countries. I believe that in order to see change and reform brought about to our welfare systems and what we are doing for our poor, and then it is going to take influential people who have the ability to speak for those who can not speak for themselves. We will need to see more causes for America for celebrities to join and help push for change. Do not just talk about the flaws of our system, come up with an idea that we can run with.
In the book The Tipping Point the author Malcolm Gladwell talks about change and what it takes to truly make change happen. Mainly he mentions the kind of people it takes for change of any kind to occur and to make change lasting and “sticky”. This book has so many examples of where we as a society have been affected by all different levels of change because the idea was heard by a certain person who has the capability of spreading the word better than your average person. I believe that things don’t change overnight. Change is a process, it takes time, however after reading this book, I was convinced that society could see change happen quicker if the right kind of people got involved. Much like how in his book, Gladwell discussed that if these special social salesmen personality type people were not happy or satisfied with a certain product or idea, then most likely the product or idea would not go very far because these people are the people responsible for creating a word of mouth epidemic and making it have a more lasting effect. They are the people who tell everyone about something they think is fantastic. They are the ones who go about selling something to the public. As a society we need to find these people and get them on board with ideas about social welfare over the next 25 years. I hear a lot of people share lots of beautiful hopes and dreams for our future, but I think in order to see these things come true, we need to come up with a better way of making them attainable, in my opinion that would start by more people being a little more realistic about how they go about changing the world. If we as a society truly desire to see change, then we need to take some smaller steps to get there.
Malcolm Gladwell in his book presents three things that he believes are needed to see a lasting effect brought on in social trends. These three things are “the law of the few”, “the stickiness factor”, and “the power of context”. The first one is where you see the power of the people. Although we all can talk and have ideas, there are some people in the world that are just gifted at talking to others, these people, know more than anyone else, they are more persuasive than anyone else and they are also the kind of person who will remember every new place or new person they encounter. These are the kind of people who Gladwell says are responsible for the idea of the word of mouth epidemic. The second one is the idea that if we want to see something be successful and make it last it has to stick. It has to be something that the public is going to want to keep around. By having the people from the first one, the “salesmen” as Gladwell referred to them as ideas become stickier, because they are normally in tune with what the public wants. The third one focuses on the importance that the surroundings have on a social trend or movement. I think that when trying to determine how to see change over the next 25 years these three things will be important to remember.
One thing that so many people are concerned about seeing eliminated, is poverty. The problem is that poverty is not going to just vanish overnight. Currently as Americans, it seems like our plan to eradicate poverty is to send our aid to other countries that have more poverty than we do. Why has this become the cure for the poverty epidemic? Why does it seem that it is more important to send aid to other countries rather than try to see change in our own system right here in America? The answer is actually simple I think. People, not just any people though, certain people who have the ability to influence millions. Celebrities, I believe that when it comes to having a sticky idea, celebrities are the stickiest way to get word out to the public. Organizations, groups, social movements flock to celebrities and try to persuade them to join their cause because they know that these celebrities are considered influential not only in the U.S, but in the world. This is what has happened. This is how our attention is drawn into eliminating global poverty, because a celebrity spokesperson that many consider a role model has told us that we should. Celebrities are the salesmen of our nation.
I think the idea of having these influential people join a cause and urge others to join is brilliant, however the causes that we are urged to support seem to all be more on a global context and they are not working because they are not realistic. We are urged to donate money to other countries to stop world hunger, when we ourselves are trying to figure out where our next meal is coming from. We are urged to send a Christmas gift to an orphan in another country because they will not a Christmas when we ourselves have so many children that will not have a Christmas either. We are urged to send resources to Africa, because their people are homeless and dying when we have homeless right down our street who are also dying. Where we have missed the mark is with Gladwell’s third rule, “the power of context”. Currently America is going through an economic crisis, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, we are. More and more families are forced into poverty every day, and we are not being effective in providing for them. How can we be expected to donate money to other countries, when there is no one donating money to our country to eliminate poverty? This is why there has not been a change in global poverty, because although the message is sticky and the spokesperson is influential and can persuade some, the context is all wrong. We can’t help others if we don’t stop for a second and help our own.
Let’s get these celebrities to join a cause that is even closer to home than Africa, let’s get them to consider America as a cause. I think that if want to see reform brought to our current welfare system then we are going to have to raise more awareness for the epidemic of poverty right here in America and I think we are going to need influential people to help do that. Anyone can sit and talk about how flawed our welfare system is and how ineffective we are at helping the poor and the homeless, but unless that person has the ability to influence other’s to speak up and take action, all it is, is talk. If we can somehow get these influential people to start raising more awareness on national poverty and urging people to speak up about their conditions, then we might be able to see more government officials take interest in creating reform in our social welfare system. The welfare system is not something that can just fix itself, it is not something that we can just sit back and hope improves. Let’s quit campaigning to send aid to other countries and campaign for more aid for our own country. America needs to pay more attention to its own poverty before we try to address the poverty in other countries. I believe that in order to see change and reform brought about to our welfare systems and what we are doing for our poor, and then it is going to take influential people who have the ability to speak for those who can not speak for themselves. We will need to see more causes for America for celebrities to join and help push for change. Do not just talk about the flaws of our system, come up with an idea that we can run with.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Editorial 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30tue2.html?_r=1&ref=editorials
This article talks about the Dream Act and the hope it brings to future immigration reform if it passes.
What kind of future reform will it bring though? The Dream Act proposes that we essentially provide amnesty for undocumented immigrants who are college students or serve in the military. This seems like something that Americans should be okay about because these individuals hopefully would be a benefit to our society. If this is something that passes, okay fine...but what next? What are some of this future immigration reforms America will also see passed or try to be passed? I can't help but think that something like this would further encourage immigrants to continue coming across the border undocumented. So these undocumented individuals go to college and serve our in our military which will benefit our society I guess in the long run, but would it not also benefit our society to deport them? I am not against immigration, as long as it is done the right way and through the proper systems. I realize it takes a long time for the process, so I propose that if we continue to allow immigration, why not make the process for coming easier to encourage them to come legally. Many who discuss the Dream Act and advocate for immigration reform often talk about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and how they have the same rights as I do fail to realize that it says "citizen" if they are undocumented in this country, they are not a citizen, therefore these do not apply to them. Immigration reform should mean that we either start to crack down on those coming illegally to our country or we make the process for them to come legally easier and quicker. Our country is in a crisis whether people think so or not, if something doesn't change we will not have the resources to support our nation and we will continue to see a crappy economy and more and more poverty.
This article talks about the Dream Act and the hope it brings to future immigration reform if it passes.
What kind of future reform will it bring though? The Dream Act proposes that we essentially provide amnesty for undocumented immigrants who are college students or serve in the military. This seems like something that Americans should be okay about because these individuals hopefully would be a benefit to our society. If this is something that passes, okay fine...but what next? What are some of this future immigration reforms America will also see passed or try to be passed? I can't help but think that something like this would further encourage immigrants to continue coming across the border undocumented. So these undocumented individuals go to college and serve our in our military which will benefit our society I guess in the long run, but would it not also benefit our society to deport them? I am not against immigration, as long as it is done the right way and through the proper systems. I realize it takes a long time for the process, so I propose that if we continue to allow immigration, why not make the process for coming easier to encourage them to come legally. Many who discuss the Dream Act and advocate for immigration reform often talk about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and how they have the same rights as I do fail to realize that it says "citizen" if they are undocumented in this country, they are not a citizen, therefore these do not apply to them. Immigration reform should mean that we either start to crack down on those coming illegally to our country or we make the process for them to come legally easier and quicker. Our country is in a crisis whether people think so or not, if something doesn't change we will not have the resources to support our nation and we will continue to see a crappy economy and more and more poverty.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Policy Blog # 11
Prompt: What is an important question that was raised for you in one of these chapters? How do you respond to it?
Chapter 12 of the textbook is all about the Health Care System. It discusses various policies that use to exists and policies that currently exist and ways that our governments have sought out to change the overall health care system to better the lives of it's citizens.
While reading the chapter, however there were many statistics that struck me. For example did you have any idea that "Health care costs in the United States are higher than in any other industrialized nation"(315)? When I read that I was shocked, another interesting thing that the chapter mentioned was that "this is due to a variety of factors, including diet, low levels of physical activity, births to teenage mothers, and the high number of violent deaths"(315). When I read that, the thought that was going on in my head before could not be contained.
Here is a question? Would addressing some of these factors be more effective than trying to change the entire health care system?
I am not saying that we shouldn't seek to try and change aspects of the health care system, but I am saying that maybe we should also evaluate aspects of our society that we could seek out to change. When was the last time you saw your neighbors outside? When was the last time you saw kids playing outside on a regular basis? Everyday things are being introduced to us that encourage us to further sit in front of our tv or computer and play video games, watch tv or check on our facebook or twitter accounts for hours. I strongly believe that a reason why we see so much more health issues in people is because of the lazy mindset that is encouraged in our society. I also strongly believe that if we focused on putting more money into our education system, we would see fewer teen pregnancies and fewer drop outs, because I would venture to say that alot of the people that fit into those categories are the ones that later need to rely on the government programs for health care because they can not afford some kind of insurance, because let's face it. Insurance is expensive and difficult to find the right kind of coverage for a your family. I think that if we try to develop more programs that address the various factors listed before, we might see less health care expenses.
Another thing I thought about during this chapter was insurance. What makes insurance so difficult to receive? This summer I experienced a little bit of what it was like to not be insured and I also realized why so many people may not be insured. It is not because they don't want insurance, it is because health insurance is so difficult to get. My family had to change providers and the only provider that would cover us at the time was so outrageous that it was like we didn't even have insurance, and this provider decided to basically only partially accept myself and another family member because of our medical history...we seemed to be a risk. CRAZY! How does that make any sense? Without insurance medical bills are expensive and many people choose to instead of having a regular family doctor, just go to the ER if they are feeling sick. Something to consider when trying to reform the health care system is maybe figure out what makes insurance providers so expensive?
Essentially this chapter just got be thinking about alot of things. I don't know much about what goes on with the Health care system, but by reading this chapter I think that there are other places we could seek out to change, besides trying to tackle something massive like the health care system and the millions of Americans that are involved in this system.
Chapter 12 of the textbook is all about the Health Care System. It discusses various policies that use to exists and policies that currently exist and ways that our governments have sought out to change the overall health care system to better the lives of it's citizens.
While reading the chapter, however there were many statistics that struck me. For example did you have any idea that "Health care costs in the United States are higher than in any other industrialized nation"(315)? When I read that I was shocked, another interesting thing that the chapter mentioned was that "this is due to a variety of factors, including diet, low levels of physical activity, births to teenage mothers, and the high number of violent deaths"(315). When I read that, the thought that was going on in my head before could not be contained.
Here is a question? Would addressing some of these factors be more effective than trying to change the entire health care system?
I am not saying that we shouldn't seek to try and change aspects of the health care system, but I am saying that maybe we should also evaluate aspects of our society that we could seek out to change. When was the last time you saw your neighbors outside? When was the last time you saw kids playing outside on a regular basis? Everyday things are being introduced to us that encourage us to further sit in front of our tv or computer and play video games, watch tv or check on our facebook or twitter accounts for hours. I strongly believe that a reason why we see so much more health issues in people is because of the lazy mindset that is encouraged in our society. I also strongly believe that if we focused on putting more money into our education system, we would see fewer teen pregnancies and fewer drop outs, because I would venture to say that alot of the people that fit into those categories are the ones that later need to rely on the government programs for health care because they can not afford some kind of insurance, because let's face it. Insurance is expensive and difficult to find the right kind of coverage for a your family. I think that if we try to develop more programs that address the various factors listed before, we might see less health care expenses.
Another thing I thought about during this chapter was insurance. What makes insurance so difficult to receive? This summer I experienced a little bit of what it was like to not be insured and I also realized why so many people may not be insured. It is not because they don't want insurance, it is because health insurance is so difficult to get. My family had to change providers and the only provider that would cover us at the time was so outrageous that it was like we didn't even have insurance, and this provider decided to basically only partially accept myself and another family member because of our medical history...we seemed to be a risk. CRAZY! How does that make any sense? Without insurance medical bills are expensive and many people choose to instead of having a regular family doctor, just go to the ER if they are feeling sick. Something to consider when trying to reform the health care system is maybe figure out what makes insurance providers so expensive?
Essentially this chapter just got be thinking about alot of things. I don't know much about what goes on with the Health care system, but by reading this chapter I think that there are other places we could seek out to change, besides trying to tackle something massive like the health care system and the millions of Americans that are involved in this system.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Editorial 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon3.html?ref=opinion
The article is about how DNA has been used as evidence for many death row inmates after they have already been convicted. The article mentions how the DNA was not tested during the actual trial and is now being tested as a way to delay or avoid execution of these inmates.
I have heard about DNA testing post conviction before but after reading this article I learned that sometimes attorneys or courts will not test all DNA in order to either protect the convicted they represent or to provide a guilty verdict for who they are convicting. In the example case the article mentioned, his attorney only requested DNA testing of some material because of the fear of further proving his guilt.
This idea of only presenting some of evidence to convict someone to death row seems risky. Alot of times we hear stories about how the wrong person was put to death because of not testing all the evidence. The author of the article is against death row but does say that if we are going to have it, then we should at least make sure we have proper evidence. I think that the same can be said about not just death row but for anyone in prison. I support the death penalty, but I do think that when deciding someone's innocence or guilt in a trial and in a criminal investigation all the evidence should be tested. It should not be permitted to only run tests on some of the evidence. If everything was being examined and tested prior to conviction then there would be less questions raised about those on death row. We would see guilty men on death row and not innocent men who were put there based on partial evidence. This article says the issue is partial DNA testing being used post conviction. I think another issue why are courts not asking for full DNA tests to start with?
The article is about how DNA has been used as evidence for many death row inmates after they have already been convicted. The article mentions how the DNA was not tested during the actual trial and is now being tested as a way to delay or avoid execution of these inmates.
I have heard about DNA testing post conviction before but after reading this article I learned that sometimes attorneys or courts will not test all DNA in order to either protect the convicted they represent or to provide a guilty verdict for who they are convicting. In the example case the article mentioned, his attorney only requested DNA testing of some material because of the fear of further proving his guilt.
This idea of only presenting some of evidence to convict someone to death row seems risky. Alot of times we hear stories about how the wrong person was put to death because of not testing all the evidence. The author of the article is against death row but does say that if we are going to have it, then we should at least make sure we have proper evidence. I think that the same can be said about not just death row but for anyone in prison. I support the death penalty, but I do think that when deciding someone's innocence or guilt in a trial and in a criminal investigation all the evidence should be tested. It should not be permitted to only run tests on some of the evidence. If everything was being examined and tested prior to conviction then there would be less questions raised about those on death row. We would see guilty men on death row and not innocent men who were put there based on partial evidence. This article says the issue is partial DNA testing being used post conviction. I think another issue why are courts not asking for full DNA tests to start with?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Policy Blog #5 (Op-ed)
Prompt:
Write a letter to the editor or Op-ed piece about an issue about which you are passionate and post it on your blog.
Whenever it is time to elect new political officials into office, debates on hot topics begin. The media also begin flashing the messages of what particular parties stand for. One thing that seems to be a hot topic is the welfare system. Normally I hear that Democrats or liberals, if you want to call them, take a stand of more government aid, they are the ones who seek out programs that will provide aid to people in need, and the Republicans, or the conservatives, take the stand that there should not be a lot of government aid, because it is not societies responsibility to assist everyone who can't help themselves.
Although there is some truth in that I do think it is slightly misleading, because both parties have provided many programs that people in society have benefited from. Because I think that both parties believe that there needs to be help for those that need it. Although I think that the government has a responsibility to the people of the nation to provide them with resources. However, I have recently been asking myself and wondering "where does the line get drawn?" "how long can the government be expected to provide for people" "When does the responsibility shift from the government and more to the individual?"
When I ask these questions I understand that there are people in our nation who desperately need some sort of aid because they can not do it alone, but how long? Many programs have been established as temporary aid,but it turns in to something more permanent. The government can not be held responsible for getting individuals back on their feet if individuals do not take some responsibility themselves. When I drive by a government housing location, I can't help but notice how many adults I see just sitting outside smoking or having a beer in the middle of the day. It makes me think that they are not working on trying to better their own situation because they are just expecting the government to bail them out.
I am not saying that everyone who receives some kind of government aid is abusing it, but I can't help but wonder how many people continue to live in poverty because our current welfare system is flawed and allows for abuse and nothing is being done about it.
I would like to see our government not only develop programs that would encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own lives and conditions, but also seek ways to adjust our current programs. Even if that means making the application process of who qualifies more difficult or if it means creating a system with a tighter monitor of the individuals who receive aid.
Write a letter to the editor or Op-ed piece about an issue about which you are passionate and post it on your blog.
Whenever it is time to elect new political officials into office, debates on hot topics begin. The media also begin flashing the messages of what particular parties stand for. One thing that seems to be a hot topic is the welfare system. Normally I hear that Democrats or liberals, if you want to call them, take a stand of more government aid, they are the ones who seek out programs that will provide aid to people in need, and the Republicans, or the conservatives, take the stand that there should not be a lot of government aid, because it is not societies responsibility to assist everyone who can't help themselves.
Although there is some truth in that I do think it is slightly misleading, because both parties have provided many programs that people in society have benefited from. Because I think that both parties believe that there needs to be help for those that need it. Although I think that the government has a responsibility to the people of the nation to provide them with resources. However, I have recently been asking myself and wondering "where does the line get drawn?" "how long can the government be expected to provide for people" "When does the responsibility shift from the government and more to the individual?"
When I ask these questions I understand that there are people in our nation who desperately need some sort of aid because they can not do it alone, but how long? Many programs have been established as temporary aid,but it turns in to something more permanent. The government can not be held responsible for getting individuals back on their feet if individuals do not take some responsibility themselves. When I drive by a government housing location, I can't help but notice how many adults I see just sitting outside smoking or having a beer in the middle of the day. It makes me think that they are not working on trying to better their own situation because they are just expecting the government to bail them out.
I am not saying that everyone who receives some kind of government aid is abusing it, but I can't help but wonder how many people continue to live in poverty because our current welfare system is flawed and allows for abuse and nothing is being done about it.
I would like to see our government not only develop programs that would encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own lives and conditions, but also seek ways to adjust our current programs. Even if that means making the application process of who qualifies more difficult or if it means creating a system with a tighter monitor of the individuals who receive aid.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Policy blog #1
Prompt:
" What were your preconceived attitudes and beliefs about social policy? What are your first impressions of social policy after the first class? What do you hope to learn and accomplish as a result of this course? How do you feel this course fits with your interest in the profession of social work? "
When I signed up for this policy class, I was excited but at the same time nervous and unsure of what to expect. I was excited because I really like the professor... when he guest spoke in other classes I have had I always really enjoyed what the things he talked about. I could tell he was passionate about what he discussed So I am stoked I get to have him as a teacher (for the record I am totally NOT trying to suck up here, I really am excited to have Jon as a professor) and I am also excited because I heart my social work classes. They are always super fun and I learn a lot in them.
I don't really know that much about politics. I try to know somewhat things that are going on, but I am not really knowledgeable in things concerning politics. I try to stay out of conversations about government or political issues because in my experience they turn into heated arguments where feelings get hurt and normally one of the people walk away crying. I just don't like that. I've always just believed that I have my opinions and you have yours and we can't talk about them in a friendly manner I rather not talk about them at all. So although I love social work classes when I saw that I was taking class about social policies and welfare I got real nervous because when I hear these words and my mind jumps off to negative feelings I have toward certain government policies, social issues or negative stories I have heard about things not working or being used the right way.
I hope that by taking this class I will not only better understand things concerning social policies and issues but also maybe improve the negative feelings I tend to associate with various things. I also think that this course will get me to think about things with a more open mind than I tend to have. As a social worker I think it is important to hear and listen to what others have to say and not be critical if their opinions don't mesh perfectly with yours. It allows for you to have views from different perspectives about things. I think that knowing and having some sort of understanding about different social policies is super important for any social worker because being aware of the things that are going on in society as far as policies or various social movements have the potential to affect whatever population I choose to work with. For me, I feel led to work with adolescents. What I have experienced is that teens are influenced from all sorts of different kinds of things, whether it be the media or a popular social movement. Teens are at the point in life where they are starting to really think for themselves about what they believe and who they are. Therefore, I think it will be important for me to know different things that might influence them or things they might be hearing so that I will better be able to work with them and communicate with them. Overall I am looking forward to the class, after we had our first meeting my nerves were calmed because I realized that other people were also unsure of how they felt about policy.
" What were your preconceived attitudes and beliefs about social policy? What are your first impressions of social policy after the first class? What do you hope to learn and accomplish as a result of this course? How do you feel this course fits with your interest in the profession of social work? "
When I signed up for this policy class, I was excited but at the same time nervous and unsure of what to expect. I was excited because I really like the professor... when he guest spoke in other classes I have had I always really enjoyed what the things he talked about. I could tell he was passionate about what he discussed So I am stoked I get to have him as a teacher (for the record I am totally NOT trying to suck up here, I really am excited to have Jon as a professor) and I am also excited because I heart my social work classes. They are always super fun and I learn a lot in them.
I don't really know that much about politics. I try to know somewhat things that are going on, but I am not really knowledgeable in things concerning politics. I try to stay out of conversations about government or political issues because in my experience they turn into heated arguments where feelings get hurt and normally one of the people walk away crying. I just don't like that. I've always just believed that I have my opinions and you have yours and we can't talk about them in a friendly manner I rather not talk about them at all. So although I love social work classes when I saw that I was taking class about social policies and welfare I got real nervous because when I hear these words and my mind jumps off to negative feelings I have toward certain government policies, social issues or negative stories I have heard about things not working or being used the right way.
I hope that by taking this class I will not only better understand things concerning social policies and issues but also maybe improve the negative feelings I tend to associate with various things. I also think that this course will get me to think about things with a more open mind than I tend to have. As a social worker I think it is important to hear and listen to what others have to say and not be critical if their opinions don't mesh perfectly with yours. It allows for you to have views from different perspectives about things. I think that knowing and having some sort of understanding about different social policies is super important for any social worker because being aware of the things that are going on in society as far as policies or various social movements have the potential to affect whatever population I choose to work with. For me, I feel led to work with adolescents. What I have experienced is that teens are influenced from all sorts of different kinds of things, whether it be the media or a popular social movement. Teens are at the point in life where they are starting to really think for themselves about what they believe and who they are. Therefore, I think it will be important for me to know different things that might influence them or things they might be hearing so that I will better be able to work with them and communicate with them. Overall I am looking forward to the class, after we had our first meeting my nerves were calmed because I realized that other people were also unsure of how they felt about policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
