Welfare


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

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.

Category: Business