Response to Jeff's Post

Jeff, I agree that greed is HUGE flaw of humans. We are way too greedy and always care about ourselves more than the next person. We are too stubborn to see that there are people in this world that need that $500 raise more than us, but we don't see that "light." Most people do NOT want to go on welfare because their sense of pride goes "out the window." They rather work their butts off then take assistance from the government. Now I am all for pride but sometimes they have to suck up their pride and go to someone else for help, no matter how bad they will feel.

I feel like politicians should NOT have an opinion on the welfare system. As you said, Jeff, these kinds of people do not know what it is like to go from paycheck to paycheck to survive or how much milk is on food stamps. Our politicians care about how much they make more than how much their constituents make, and that is just oh so sad!! I bet Brian Higgins is the only representative who actually cares more about his constituents'' salary than his own paycheck (as a local example).

~Chad S.

Welfare vs. WelFAIR

Before I start this post for this week, I just want to give some background knowledge on how this post will work. Every couple of days, I write on my facebook group (Chadinski's Grind My Gears) about stuff that annoys me. Well this post will follow the same format.

YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY GRINDS MY GEARS??!! THE WELFARE SYSTEM!!!  

This so-called "system" is very corrupt and undisciplined to an extent. People apply for welfare when they really don't need it. The people that truly rely on the welfare system to buy groceries do not get food stamps or money because some jerks are "milking" the system too much. I mean why the hell should a guy who makes $50,000/year try to get welfare. An average teacher makes that kind of money about 10 years into the educational field. That guy should get his head re-examined in my mind!

I mean don't get me wrong the welfare system is very helpful. It  "alleviate the burden of poverty of families with children and allow widowed mothers to maintain their households" according to the Aid to Dependent Child Act of 1930. However this is not how the welfare system is currently working. People apply for welfare and get it, even though a struggling mother of 2 needs it more than "that guy." According to welfareinfo.org, there are many criteria requirements that one has to meet to gain welfare in this great country. "Eligibility is determined using: 1) gross and net income, 2) size of the family, and any crisis situation such as 3) medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is then assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for."

Apparently 8% of the US' population is on welfare, or about 29,900,000 people. The US government spends roughly $131.9 billion on welfare (excluding food stamps or unemployment benefits). **That is roughly 10% of the total governments annual spending bill.** If you make less than $1,000/month, then you can qualify for welfare. The Senate Budget Committee revealed in this past August 2012 that the number of people on welfare is at the highest level this country has seen thus-far!! 1/3 people receive government assistance, aka WELFARE!! Lastly, NY State is the 5 highest welfare providing state in the nation. The worst is Wyoming at a 28% increase in 1 year (from 07-08). The best change is Rhode Island at a 13% drop in the welfare system.

For more statistics please go to:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
http://rt.com/usa/million-us-residents-welfare-268/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USbt_13bs1n_40#usgs302
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html?_r=0

In Response to "The Welfare System - What's Your Take?"

I think a good point was made that there are some of the less fortunate that need welfare but there are also many who abuse the system. It was mentioned the other day in class that maybe there are a less percentage of those on welfare who abuse the system but we take that percentage and view it as everyone who is on welfare abuses the system. There are no doubt many who don’t abuse the welfare system and are truly in need of it, but what about those who don’t truly need it. This is where I believe our welfare system fails majorly. I don’t believe it’s fair that there are many adults who have earned jobs and worked hard to be where they are and support themselves and families, yet they have to give a percentage of their earnings to those who chose not work as hard. There are also some families who are not on welfare that may be in some of the same positions of those who are on welfare, but are still providing for those on welfare. I believe that there should be stipulations and new requirements on the welfare system. I think there should be something along the lines of helping the participants of welfare get jobs or some type of work and depending on conditions there should be consequences if over a certain time they fail to do so. What do you think about the welfare system? Do you think it is fine just the way it is, or should there be changes? 

A Note on welfare

A lot of our discussion this week focused on welfare, so I thought it would be fitting to write more about it here. For this post I am not trying to gauge one's opinion on Obama or the budget or slashing welfare system, social security, or any of that. Let's look at welfare at it's basic value. We know that most people use the welfare system honestly, and that the few that do make the system on a whole look bad. Greed isn't a trait associated with people on welfare, it is a character flaw in humanity. Greed  and cheating exists outside the welfare system. There are also more people that are eligible for it then cheat it, we heard about few examples saying that pride was the main reason. Many people just want to get by on their own. Yes, there are obvious problems. It was designed to be temporary, but this proved to not be the case.

But I think we can all agree that welfare, or some sort of support of support program, can be a necessity if used correctly. Unfortunately, there are poor and suffering in this country. A lot of people also say that they should have to pay for other people. But this is the essence of government to provide services to the people. The money we pay for taxes goes to numerous things, roads and highways, government programs, infrastructure, and etc. Since it is a service just like a lot of other programs, it is one's civic duty to do his role. Many of the critics of welfare are often very skeptical because they have never been in a situation where they were on welfare or a similar program, and these people have drawn a lot of support for a situation they are inexperienced in.

Are there problems with welfare? Yes. There are a lot of problems in government, not just welfare. While most of us live honest lives without poverty, lest us not forget those that struggle in this country. I think they too have a right to an honest living like every other citizen, and if welfare gives them that push or that help that they deserve.

Questions about welfare

I always like hearing people's opinions on welfare in my classes. However, there always seem to be a general lack of understanding and misinformation. Now, I don't claim to be any more informed or above anyone in my knowledge about social programs in the U.S. but I think that as a whole the topic of poverty and social welfare programs are rarely seriously discussed or critically looked at. Part of it is our removal from the situation. As college students we have a certain amount of privilege which not only distances us from any real understanding of impoverished neighborhoods but also of seriously considering their welfare as a serious or relevant part of our life. In short, why should I care about inner-city ghettos or impoverished areas in the mid-west?

As a topic of discourse not only is poverty/welfare generally avoided in this kind of atmosphere but there is no real advocacy or work being done to tell us that we should do otherwise (that we should care about the impoverished). It is not held as a prevalent issue in our American discourse. The only places where people seem to talk or even care about poverty is in impoverished places, but as a whole (with the exception of the "jobs" problem) poverty is not in our National scope.

So because of this, I didn't really want to make really a whole lot of claims. I simply wanted to put up some data (which admittedly can be hard a lot find sometimes) which hopefully should challenge us about our general perceptions and which which hopefully leave us with more to say than "it needs reform" the next time anyone of us is asked to speak on the issue.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=110936.0

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2012/09/20/38746/think-again-ignoring-poverty-and-hunger/

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/media-not-concerned-about-the-very-poor/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnCOutrlRRQ



-Jayson Castillo

Capitalism and Eugenics

I thought the conversation we had on eugenics was one of the more interesting ones we had this semester.  One of the social characteristics that eugenics aims to weed out is poverty.  The idea behind poverty is that it is a direct result of laziness.  Eugenics believes that everyone should work to contribute to society and no one should be dependent on the masses.  Yet we live in a society based on capitalism and a free market.  Applying eugenics to the impoverished directly violates the fundamentals of capitalism.  Socially demanding that everyone in society work because it is more beneficially is extremely similar to socialism.  Socialism controls the labor market in order to benefit the state because the welfare of the state supersedes that of the individual.  I just think that this idea is eerily similar to what we were discussing in class.

Response to 'Eugenics and Incest'

I'm not exactly sure Incest is the best idea when in comes to different ways to produce perfect traits. I actually know that it's been proven that incest can mess up the baby being born. It's effects are major, including increased risk of congenital disorders, disability and even death. So maybe keeping certain genes in the family is important enough to some people for them to follow through with it, but it's results can be extreme. I don't really see it ever coming to America because it's not something I see our culture accepting so easily. If anything, it would take a long time for the country to accept. 

The Requirements of Welfare.

Continuing the big discussion on the welfare system, I decided to look into the details about the system. If one were to make a guess at what was required, it's kind of unknown information. What could someone possibly have to give when they're asking for the last resort help that the welfare system provides? According to WelfareInfo.org, "Common documents asked for are proof of income, ID, and utility bills or other proof of residency." I think it's interesting that a person would need these documents in order to ask for assistance from the government. It was also interesting to me, when I was thinking about who would actually need this system the most, and how they probably don't have enough of the documents to be granted the help they needed. I guess I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks about it? I know you obviously need to prove you live in the country to be able to gain it's help, but where does that leave the people who live off the street that actually need the money, as opposed to the ones who don't necessarily? Or is the system created in a way that it may not even provide for the ones who desperately need the help?

The Welfare System- What's Your Take?

Continuing on our class discussion from Thursday, I was curious to get everyone's opinion on the welfare system.  There are people out in America that truly need the aid the system provides.  However, as you know, not everybody uses the system the way it should be.  This system takes money out of our everyday pay checks and gives them to the less fortunate.  Some may look at it as a great thing, and others may say- well why is my money going to a person that just sits around and does nothing all day. With that in mind I was curious to know how you all feel about our current system, and what you would do to prevent further exploitation, or why you think our system is actually good enough to keep in place.

Continuing the discussion on Eugenics

The discussion on Thursday regarding eugenics and the welfare system I believe was intriguing and brought on some interesting conversation that has obviously carried over to the blog. I know everyone has a lot of different opinions and stereotypes about welfare and this makes the discussion more difficult when there are predisposed notions about what it means to be on welfare and what kind of people opt out to use this system as a means of survival. As with many other situations I would not like to judge welfare on the stereotypes that I know about it, rather I would like to think that this system may need some adjustment just as many other assistance systems need.

I do not believe that eugenics would have eliminated the welfare system because of the many environmental factors that influence the way a person lives. If eugenics was implemented to eliminate all of the "bad" and "undesirable" traits from a society this doesn't mean that there still wouldn't be a some kind of lower class of people. Maybe considering today's society they would be higher than the lower class that exists today. But, considering completely different circumstances means that this entire situation would change and therefore new stereotypes and assumptions would be made about those that are considered lesser. I believe that the way our society has worked there has always been a scapegoat and therefore eugenics would not rid us of this construct, but just give us a new and different one.

Eugenics as the cure for welfare?

I really enjoyed our class discussion on Thursday in regards to Eugenics and welfare. It was thought provoking and something that didn't come to mind when I was reading. I can see how some people may think that it would help the situation because Eugenics aims to "weed out" the undesirable attributes and leave us with a society that reproduces people who have qualities that would benefit society.

With this being said, I do not think that this would solve the problem of some people in our society needing social assistance. Like we said in class, some traits are learned and not passed down genetically. I completely disagree with the essentialist view that all of our traits are based on our DNA. There are so many things that we learn and are socialized to do. Our environment really has a strong influence on us and help to shape who we become and who we are.

If people decide that they want (or do not want) to do something- or are taught certain behaviors- their genetics may not make a difference. If people are going to work hard or not is not necessarily determined by their biological makeup. I do not think that Eugenics would solve the "problems" that we see in our society today.

I also agree with what people were saying about our welfare system needing reform. I fully agree that we should value community and have a system in place to help those in need. However, because there are people that take advantage of the system, and some people who don't want to get off the system because it pays them more than a minimum wage job in some cases. This is a real shame and I think we really need to make more of an effort to support the people who need it by offering job training and other resources instead of just giving financial support. I also think it would help if there was a limited amount of time that people were allowed to collect benefits, and to have a stricter process of screening and checking in to make sure individuals were actually job hunting.

At the end of the day, however, I like the fact that I live in a society that will help me if I need it, and I although I would like to see it improve, I also think it could be a lot worse. Eugenics is more of a system of control that serves to reinforce norms and keep the status quo for the powerful group. I don't think it would have made a difference to make society "better." If anything it's scary to think about our society consisting of people that are all the same instead of a society that values individualism and has a variety of people.

Eugenics and Incest

As some of you may know, there are people who still practice eugenics today. Personally I am not  fond of the practice, but it still happens sometimes. I had the thought of eugenics and if it relates to incest. In fact, in Britain, cousins can marry each other so that they can create children with perfect traits. Some societies think that incest is a perfectly normal practice in order to try and keep perfect traits. However I think its disgusting. What do you think would happen if this was to happen in the US? Do you think that society would accept this practice? Or reject it?

-Courtney O

Fitting In

Going off the discussion we were having on Thursday, I'd like to shed light on the fact that it is society that is scrutinizing the poor, certain races, and certain genders but they then expect them to live up to these expectations of a "normal society". It's like society is cutting off there legs right from underneath them. If you hear your whole life that you are not supposed to amount to anything, then you wont know how to aspire to do anything else but that. Bringing eugenics into it, the government was actually paying people to not have babies because they did not want that type of person to amount to anything anymore. Then and now people of this world have been trying to force every single person into a certain category. If you don't fit then something must be wrong with you. In my opinion it is those people who need to open there eyes and realize the beauty of diversity. Also several people look down upon someone with Autism or Down Syndrome because they can't do what "normal" people of society can do. In my opinion though, people who have those cases have some of the most beautiful minds and spirits. Perhaps society should learn from them instead of making this world all about the numbers instead of the people.

In Response To Jessica's post "The Welfare System"

I agree with Jessica's proposal but as I mentioned in class, I think that the welfare system itself also needs to be fixed. Enacting requirements on limits for welfare and ascertaining a family's consumption are solutions to the effects of the problem, as opposed to solutions to the causes. It is far more effective to simply address the causes and make sure it is easier to use the system to minimum as opposed to abusing it.

As part of my internship this semester with Congressman Tom Reed I had the chance to meet with the director of Chautauqua Opportunities, a Dunkirk located organization that serves poor and disadvantaged people in that area. The director's number one concern was not that people were exploiting the welfare system, it was that the welfare system was entrapping those in it. While there are always some bad apples in the bunch, she emphasized that most people who were on welfare and part of her program wanted to get off welfare but it is simply a bad decision on their part. For example, she mentioned that when somebody goes off welfare and gets a job they are bumped up a tax class and therefore end up making less money then before. They also lose other governmental breaks and benefits from getting off of welfare. It seems that indeed people are milking the welfare system but not out of greed, it is simply to maximize the minimal resources they already have. This is human nature, to do what is one's best interest. If this is at the expense of taxpayer's and one's dignity, than so be it. Survival is more important than pride and faceless citizens.

The solution, the director explained, is to have Congress changed the myriad laws governing the welfare system. I'm not expert on such things and I can't quite remember the specifics of her plan, but suffice it say it involved changing incentives for going off welfare. It should be more beneficial for a person to go off welfare than to be on it. Perhaps taxes would be lower or non existent for a person off of welfare until they reach the next income bracket? Perhaps an (temporary) increase in breaks and benefits for those off of welfare? Whatever it may be, the welfare system should be designed so recipients clearly do it as a last resort. They also need incentives to get off it as soon as possible. In addition we should also enact the measures Jessica mentioned. Together I think these would make for an effective base of rules for a improved welfare system. 

The Welfare System

Today in class we talked about the welfare system. I know that there are a lot of different views on the welfare system. Our book states that most people think of an unemployed black woman, yet most women on welfare are not black. I believe this fact. I personally believe that there should be some sort of time restraint on the welfare system, and the recipients should be checked up on every so often to ensure that the money is being spent on items that should be purchased. As an employee in a supermarket I see people on welfare everyday. Yes I may not know that family's situation but I do not believe that those on welfare should be able to take money off their welfare cards and purchase alcohol or lottery tickets. Both things that I see on a everyday basis. I just don't see how it is fair the some people work two or three minimum wage jobs to support their family's or themselves because they do not qualify for welfare but those who do qualify may not work one job or even try looking for a job, therefore taking advantage of the welfare system.  

Race and Ethnicity issues Connected to Welfare & Eugenics

I think what is often overlooked when debating social issues in our society, are the racial and ethnic issues that our country has battled for centuries and how they came to be. It is evident that race is a social construct and something we have attached significance since the first encounter with Africans. With this notion that darker skinned humans are "uncivilized and barbaric" therefore determining that they are inferior; this doesn't actually mean that they are inferior or somehow biologically structured to be less than those of lighter skin. White people often blame the victim and do not think outside of the box when addressing problems within our society. It is not intentional, it is just the way we have been conditioned, to not see white privilege. So when you say that people on welfare, struggling to survive, have options, you are inferring that they have the same opportunities available to them, that you do; which is false. Most of these people grew up in poor neighborhoods with little access to quality education and lower class jobs, so not only do they have an innate disadvantage and no knowledge of how to get themselves out of their situation, but if they are a minority they have an even less chance to achieve a higher SES, because of the racial and ethnic categorization that exists in our society.Yes, some people do abuse the system and use their checks to purchase electronics and other luxury items, but this does not mean that the welfare system has no beneficial purpose. Our society is unfair and equal opportunity is not true for everyone, so before you criticize someones situation based on few encounters that you have had, it is important to analyze why they may be in the position they are in and what is preventing them from changing that. It is not as though they want to be receiving welfare checks, maybe it is that they don't have the knowledge or resources to make a better living for themselves.

 In regards to eugenics, the whole reason for this selective breeding process was to perfect and improve races, suggesting that inferiority among race, and people in general, (a concept that was created and molded by humans, specifically white humans) is real. So to say that it was for the benefit of others and society, is just confirming racial purity and the fact that there is such thing as a 'fitter' race. Preferred personality and physical traits for selective breeding is, as a whole, simply ridiculous and conducted by ignorance. It also cannot be justified with the fact that the process of selective breeding and contraceptives like birth control and sterilization in Singapore, will better our society and make social problems and poverty dissipate.

Eugenics Presentation

Europa Europa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v9Uk0glSrQ

This clip shows how the Nazi’s used ‘science’ through measurements and facial structure to push the authority of the ‘Aryan race’ as superior to the Jewish ethnicity. Through the use of this pseudo science and the perpetuation of the claims that Aryan/Nordic people are the most-talented and beautiful was a way of getting the population on their side. This ideological structuring of the races, combined with the use of scientific looking tools seemed to give a biological rationalization for some of the Nazi claims.  It also demonstrates how these are false claims when Soloman/Josef Peters is pronounced to be of Aryan ancestry despite the fact that he is Jewish. This shows how Eugenics was used to garner support from the citizens of Germany to the expulsion and eventual mass-murder of millions of Jews. This is much the same way that we see America and Germany supporting the sterilization and euthanasia of African American and Afro-German children and adults.

Information on Graduate Mothers Scheme: http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/dr-tony-tan-was-no-independent-minded-person-on-the-graduate-mothers-scheme

Other Population Control Methods:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AdgsYCXejgYC&pg=PA153&dq=graduate+mothers+scheme&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lvZcUbOeFOnD4AOw-4HwAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=graduate%20mothers%20scheme&f=false

The graduate mothers scheme, as well as the other population control measures that Singapore used, tie in with both the “Branded with Infamy” article and the chapter “The Black Stork”. The Graduate Mothers Scheme shows the worries of the Singapore government to be the same as those expressed by supporters of Eugenics in America decades earlier. The ‘undesirable’ portion of the population had the highest birth rate, while educated people were discovered to be having less children. From this came what they thought would be good incentives for educated women to want to have children, in the form of admittance of their offspring into the school systems. Other programs included matchmaking services for educated singles and incentives for lower classes to undergo sterilization.

Questions:

1) Do we still hold certain Eugenic beliefs today in regards to birth control?

2) Are the policies that Singapore put into place any less “morally repugnant” than those methods used in America and Nazi Germany? (195)

3) What does the use of Eugenics and how easily it was accepted tell us about the way that authority is imposed upon society?

4) Did it surprise you to discover that Planned Parenthood was started by a supporter of Eugenics?

Is Race an Important Part of Literature?

At the end of today’s class, the question of race being a factor of how things are perceived in the book. I believe that the view of how race is a factor depends on the context that you are using. For most of the time when reading the book, I did not consciously remember Skloot was white even when Skloot talked about the interactions between her and her family. Race is an important part when talking about the Lacks family. I believe that it is important to include the race when describing the Lacks family in the sense of ethics and how much those ethics have or haven’t changed. When the family interacts with the medical researchers trying to get more information, Skloot describes the family as being unknowledgeable towards the topic of Henrietta’s cells and taken advantage of. When talking about races of writers in literature, I feel that authors have to express more of their race if they want to try and prove a point. For example, if I was writing about if I lived in a dominant African American residence, I would include apparent differences between me and my neighbors. Skloot does not do that and in my opinion does not have a large effect on the reader’s opinion of race. Do you agree or disagree?

Darren Pope

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

Upon reading the final section of the "immortal" life of Henrietta Lacks I found it to be both a happy ending, yet a slight let down for what was its ending messages. For one, Henrietta's oldest child Joe or Zackriyya as he wishes to be called finally shows some comforting kindness to of all people Skloot for her constant dedication get the right story to tell the world about his mother even going as far as thanking her for her work and the image of the illuminated cells he received from the cancer ward. But the real problem is with Deborah dying and Lacks town completely disappearing from existence which makes me sad for the ending of the book. It seems that in the smallest of ways the Lacks family finally found its closure about the issues of their mother's memory. But once all questions were finally answered and the smallest of payment was made for all the medical injustices it seems the memory faded away symbolizing that Henrietta can finally rest in peace knowing her legacy is secured and her family is whole again. To me this is not the ending I would want to spread to the world. The family never really got anything for all their pain and suffering for the memories they lost for not having a mother to care for them. However, it seems that closure is better then no ending at all I would assume. However, I still wish somethings could have been different about the ending of this book. What do you think? And if you were unsatisfied with the book's ending how might you end it, with a positive outlook or a note of future progress perhaps?

-William Webster