# data[].attributes.body
I think that the death penalty is a good punishment but not effective. It does deal with repayment of an eye for an eye. Death Penalty though does not deter crime. There are no effective stats to show that it stops people from commenting crime. I just doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Plus it isn't right.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is not Mexico's Independence Day

2.the day Mexican military victory over France not Spain

3. Is a bigger deal in the U.S. Then it is in mexic

# data[].attributes.body
Gay people are often looked down in the Christian religion, but doesn't the bible say God loves all? If God can still love the people who've strayed away a little bit. Why can't we do the same?

# data[].attributes.body
The death penalty is often used on murders and rapist. Do you think that using the death penalty is unjust even when used on people that have hurt or killed others.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the quote is really meaningful because it seems like people have forgotten the true purpose of government assistance. I think that we should probably raise the amount we give so people actually come above the poverty level and can have a better chance than living below the poverty level with it. I think Reagan's quote just really sums up what it is supposed to be well.

# data[].attributes.body
I can see how some people can think there might be another revolution. Although we have a strong government it has it flaws, which these flaws might really set people off. Even if we were to have another revolution who is to say it want be a peaceful revolution.

# data[].attributes.body
This quote by Reagan states that welfare success should be measure by its success rate. With so many people still living in poverty and still depending on welfare can we call welfare successful. There are over 4.7 million Americans still depending on welfare and counting. The question at the end of the day is welfare really beneficial to us as a whole?

# data[].attributes.body
The Picture shows how families use welfare programs, but the programs don't help families out of poverty. It only gives them a false hope of making it out.

# data[].attributes.body
Another article around the assumption that welfare has a negative effect on our future generation. This article was written by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. and Robert Rector. The welfare program was created to help kids but instead is hurting them. Higher welfare payments have increased their dependency and has negative effects on them. 4.7 million Americans have been on welfare programs for 6 and a half years or more. Which shows that welfare doesn't help majority of its people. Also, 20 percent of the children IQ's have decreased.

# data[].attributes.body
The following article was written by Robert Rector. In the article it discuss how majority of the welfare goes to single parent households. The children who are dependent on welfare are greatly effected. According to study the children's IQ levels have reduced, the chance of them becoming fanicial unstable in the future is more likely, and when they are old they will also be dependent of welfare. Overall, the welfare creates a loop that traps majority of its people in.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the facts and statistics show the true story behind why government assistance is needed and how it really does help so aspects of the economy but I think it's a interesting point to how some states get more asisitance than they might need. I think it would be more beneficial to the people who receive the benefits and to the economy if the supplemental poverty rate was used instead of the traditional one.

# data[].attributes.body
Unemployment insurance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
unemployment insurance, insurance against loss of wages during the time that an able-bodied worker is involuntarily unemployed. The goal of such insurance is to provide a minimal livelihood to unemployed workers until they are once again employed. Compulsory unemployment insurance makes such protection legally obligatory for certain classes of workers under prescribed conditions. Voluntary unemployment insurance is maintained by private organizations sanctioned, encouraged, or subsidized by the state. The first attempts to establish unemployment insurance plans began toward the end of the 19th cent. in Germany, Italy, and Switzerland (see social security). Most Western European states adopted such plans in the early part of the 20th cent.: France, 1905; Great Britain, 1911; the Netherlands, 1916; Italy, 1919; and Germany, 1927. In the United States an unemployment insurance program, along with other welfare programs, was introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. That act, amended many times, provides for a sliding scale of payroll taxes on industry. For example, employers whose records show that their business experiences little unemployment receive lower rates. The Employment and Training Administration in the U.S. Dept. of Labor is responsible for administering the law. Over the years Congress has extended the program to many workers initially not covered. By 1994 more than 96% of all workers were covered by unemployment insurance. Each state has its own unemployment insurance law and operates its own program.

See D. Nelson, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915-1935 (1969); W. Vroman, Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Adequacy in the 1990s (1990).

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright© 2017, The Columbia University Press.

Who Receives Unemployment Insurance? By Chan, Marc; Michaelides, Marios; Zhang, Sisi Research in Applied Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1, 2014

PRPEER-REVIEWED PERIODICAL

Peer-reviewed publications on Questia are publications containing articles which were subject to evaluation for accuracy and substance by professional peers of the article's author(s).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
unemployment insurance, insurance against loss of wages during the time that an able-bodied worker is involuntarily unemployed. The goal of such insurance is to provide a minimal livelihood to unemployed workers until they are once again employed. Compulsory unemployment insurance makes such protection legally obligatory for certain classes of workers under prescribed conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
Jana Kasperkevic writes an article about the results of a study from the Pew Charitable Trusts. In the article Kasperkevic writes about how the assistance from the government benefits everyone and every state. She also goes on to say that both political parties are glad that they can help people stay above the line of poverty. During her writing she only used evidence that supported her beliefs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum's findings:

For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That's equivalent to 45.3 million people.

Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% - another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.

Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.

Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Where the opinions divide is how to address the problem. Republicans including Paul Ryan have advocated cutting and consolidating government programs. Congress put that belief into legislation last year, cutting both food stamps and unemployment benefits.

The assumption in the slash-and-burn approach is that poor Americans have no one to blame but themselves for their poverty, and they only need more discipline to get out of their circumstances. Welfare skeptics find the accounts of those struggling "another sob story" and wonder why more people can't just bootstrap themselves.

If only the poor could be more organized. As Ryan put it in his poverty plan,

Providers must be held accountable, and so should recipients. Each beneficiary will sign a contract with consequences for failing to meet the agreed-upon benchmarks. At the same time, there should also be incentives for people to go to work. Under each life plan, if the individual meets the benchmarks ahead of schedule, then he or she could be rewarded.

Meanwhile Democrats and advocates for the poor cite the fact that downward mobility has become a big factor in the current manifestation of American poverty.

"For most of the American public, this downturn in the last six, seven years was a wake-up call because people in their families that they knew lost their home, were out of work for a longer period of time and they looked at that and went: 'Holy cow, maybe we do need government assistance when something like that happens,'" Dave Reaney, executive director of the Bay Area Food Bank in Alabama, told the Guardian. "I think that's why a majority of Americans today do feel that safety nets are important."

What has complicated the discussion for years is that the official poverty rate, based on the income of American households, does not tell the true story of America's poor.

"A lot of people don't remember that [the official poverty rate] doesn't include things like food stamps and other programs that are really important and actually do help a lot of people," Grovum says.

That is why, in 2010, the US government decided to introduce yet another measure of poverty: t he supplemental poverty rate, which takes into consideration consumer spending on necessities like food, shelter and utilities as well as any assistance that they might receive.

Since the supplemental poverty measure also considers cost of living in different places around the country like housing and medical expenses, it more accurately captures the way people experience poverty.

"The one thing that can get missed when you are talking about poverty rates is the way that different factors around the country can play into that," explains Grovum. "You have states where it's expensive to live and it's really different to be poor there than it is in states where it's less expensive to live."

He adds:

In some sense, it's kind of missing this whole system that we have set up for people who are poor. The other measure helps put that in context and helps people remember that there are these programs that help people and how they help them."

Take California. If one were to account for all the expenses accrued and benefits received by the 38 million people living in the Golden State, the real poverty rate would be closer to 23.4% than 16%, which is the official poverty rate. In New Mexico, on the other hand, the supplemental poverty rate, 16%, is much lower than the official poverty rate, 21.5%. According to Grovum, the poverty rate was lower under the supplemental measure than it was under the official measure in 26 states.

Unfortunately, the official poverty thresholds will still be used to award government assistance. The new measure, in the meantime, will be used to measure the health of the US economy and to better understand the effects of government assistance, according to the US census bureau website.

The upshot: especially in post-recession America, these so-called "hand-outs" are exactly what keeps millions of Americans from living in deeper poverty.
You can check out the full interactive here.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

The US census bureau's two measures of poverty show different pictures of low-income America. Here is the difference between official and supplemental poverty rates state by state. Photograph: Jake Grovum/The Pew Charitable Trusts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits. Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was written by Tami Luhby. The article discusses how the government helped 3.2 million Americans stay above the poverty line in 2010. With the reading of this article you will discover the benefits of government assistance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millions of Americans stay above the poverty line thanks to government assistance.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Without help from the federal government, millions more people would have sunk below the poverty line in 2010, U.S. Census data shows.

Unemployment insurance helped keep 3.2 million Americans out of poverty in 2010, according to new statistics released Tuesday. Without this vital lifeline, which lasts up to 99 weeks, these jobless folks would have joined the roughly 46.2 million people now considered in poverty.

Other government assistance programs, such as food stamps, also provided much-needed support to the poor. But because the Census Bureau's official poverty statistics don't consider these income sources, they were not taken into account when determining whether a person fell below the line, which is $22,314 for a family of four.

However, the Census Bureau does calculate what impact this assistance would have had if it were measured. Food stamp benefits would have lifted 3.9 million people out of poverty had that aid been counted as income.

And 5.4 million people, including 3 million children, would not have been considered impoverished had the Earned Income Tax Credit been counted. The EITC is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- to moderate-income working Americans. Some 22 states also offer similar credits.

Federal health programs, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, also helped hundreds of thousands of youngsters stay insured even though their parents lost employer-based coverage. Some 570,000 fewer children were uninsured in 2010 than in 2007, before the recession began.

The number of people receiving help from the federal government is hovering near all-time highs as the Great Recession unleashed wave upon wave of layoffs. And with unemployment remaining stubbornly elevated, many Americans have had a hard time getting back on their feet again.

Roughly one in six Americans are on government aid, with the largest two programs being Medicaid and food stamps.

But federal and state budget crunches are swiftly chipping away at these safety nets. At least six states cut back on the number of weeks that the jobless can collect state unemployment insurance. Some states have reduced the generosity of their Earned Income Tax Credit, while Michigan recently limited the amount of time the poor can collect cash welfare benefits.

Even greater threats loom on the federal level.

The deadline to apply for federal extended unemployment benefits expires at the start of 2012. President Obama is pushing Congress to once again extend the deadline to apply for these benefits, which more than 3.1 million people collect. But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Tuesday he'd only favor an extension if it were tied to job opportunities.

And it remains to be seen what type of cuts the national debt super committee will recommend. It is charged with proposing up to $1.5 billion in reduced spending, and some advocates for the poor feel the ax will fall heavily on safety net programs. The federal government provides a wide array of assistance to low-income folks, ranging from health insurance to food stamps to housing help to child care.

"What those changes are will have a very large impact on poverty in both the years and decades ahead," said Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government aid keeps millions out of poverty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of Americans stay above the poverty line thanks to government assistance. NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Without help from the federal government, millions more people would have sunk below the poverty line in 2010, U.S. Census data shows. Unemployment insurance helped keep 3.2 million Americans out of poverty in 2010, according to new statistics released Tuesday.

# data[].attributes.body
The article discuss social programs that help out property stricken people. The program was started by Franklin Roosevelt after the Great Depression in 1930's.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States, of which half was for medical care and roughly 40% for cash, food and housing assistance.