Honors Economics Period 1 by HrubyK

Honors Economics Period 1 by HrubyK https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1 Overall, which group of programs (public or private) is more effective in alleviating the symptoms of poverty? Why? Defend your response citing specific evidence. en-us 2017-02-15 12:33:55 UTC 2025-10-21 18:11:30 UTC hello@padlet.com Shannon Starr-Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154278119 Private programs are more effective in alleviating the symptoms of poverty in that they have less regulations as to who can receive their benefits. Public programs, because they are run by the government, have eligibility requirements administered by law and have little flexibility when it comes to application and reception of a program's benefits. For example, for housing subsidies, a public program, eligibility is based on total annual gross income and family size where the family’s income cannot exceed 50% of the median for their county for Housing Subsidies. Private programs are more open to helping anyone who is in need. Many private programs have more than one goal; for example, the Salvation Army participates in adult rehabilitation, veterans affairs, prison services, elderly assistance, missing person cases, human trafficking, and hunger and homelessness relief. Other programs such as YMCA and United Way also offer a variety of means of assistance to those in need. On the other hand, public programs typically only provide one service such as Unemployment Insurance, Energy Assistance and SNAP. Private programs are far more effective when it comes to battling poverty than are public programs because they do not have eligibility requirements and each organization can perform more than one service.

]]> 2017-02-16 12:30:28 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154278119 Kenzie Gentile- Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154279379 Private programs are more effective in assisting those in need. They are able to help the poor in a variety of ways, unlike the public programs which have specific requirements to meet if assistance is needed. The Salvation Army, for example, has the motto ¨Feed, clothe, comfort, care¨ showcasing that they are an organization that helps someone's overall being and not just their economic situation. The other side of this argument might say that the public programs are better because they have more resources. However, this is misleading statement because in reality, all of the resources are limited to criteria and regulation. Also, the public programs may seem like they are available for everyone in need, when they actually require very specific situations to be met. Like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The applicant must be pregnant or responsible for someone under 19 and have very low income or be unemployed. The private programs fill in where the public ones are lacking. For example, United way has impacted more than 50,000,000 people worldwide by mobilizing ¨caring¨ power to advance the common good. They also help increase education, jobs, and health care. In conclusion, private programs are more effective than public programs because they are able to address a wider variety of issues and are able to help whoever is in need at the time, not just people that fit into a certain category. ]]> 2017-02-16 12:38:16 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154279379 Kathryn Lucia - Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154283072 Private programs are better at helping people throughout the nation with a variety of issues in many different ways. Especially organizations like Catholic Charities USA, who are able to help with not only feeding the hungry, but giving them shelter, clothes, and even helping with disaster relief needs. Private programs do a better job of offering a variety of services. Many public programs only offer one target focus and if someone does not qualify for it, they many not get the help that they need. There are many rules and regulations that public programs have in place that limit people from using their services. One rule that is common among many of the public programs is that the household must be under a certain income in order to use the service. If a family needs help at a specific time then is able to get back on their feet, they will not be able to receive it when they need it. Instead, if that family were to apply for a private program's help, they would most likely receive the help they needed and their needs would be taken care of. Private programs also promote kindness and generosity to those who are donating to the programs. Almost all of the private programs do not receive any type of government funding. By working in this way, it promotes donations from those who can give. Private programs do a better job of teaching people to love and respect each other, especially the YMCA, and make it easier for people to obtain the help they need. Stereotypically, public programs are looked down on, especially by conservatives, because many people have found ways to abuse the system and take advantage of the money or aid they are getting. Private programs seem to use a more honest way of making things happen and there are hardly ever and scandals or issues reported of people taking advantage of any of the private programs. Private programs can also be more personal with their clients. Because the offices and branches go throughout the country into almost every location nationwide, people are able to go to a specific office and talk to volunteers who have a desire to be there and to help them. Public programs are generally run by the federal government, the state, or a combination of the two, making it more difficult to create a friendly atmosphere and allow candidates to talk directly to welcoming representatives. Private programs do a better job at providing services than public do because of the variety of services they are able to provide, the lack of regulations on who can participate and get help, the promotion of love and respect for all, and the friendlier atmosphere, making it easier for people to come to them for help.]]> 2017-02-16 12:55:42 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154283072 Brooke Hilden- Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154283914 Private programs are better at serving those in need because they are more open than government support programs. Almost all government support programs have an application that needs to be filled out and you are not ensured to get assistance. For example, in the government’s energy assistance program only about 20% of qualifying households receive aid because the program is limited by the money allotted by Congress every year. Whereas in private organizations, there is rarely an application required, you must simply demonstrate a need and they will do their best to help you. There are also more private organizations than government programs in the US and most of the big ones have a location near you. The YMCA for instance has 2,700 centers servicing 10,000 communities. In addition, Catholic Charities USA has 164 member agencies in 2,631 locations. To conclude, private programs are better than government programs because you rarely have to apply for aid, they have convenient locations in your community, and there are more private programs than there are government programs. ]]> 2017-02-16 12:59:47 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154283914 Samara Schratz-Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154285932 In my opinion Private programs are more effective in helping diminish symptoms of poverty, they have less criteria and regulations pertaining to who can receive them or not. The public programs are controlled by government and certain people qualify due to strict eligibility requirements. Also public programs tend to only provide for one assistance, example SNAP, help families buy food. However private programs have funding, and opportunities to do whatever they want with their program. Because they are private they can help anybody in need, they do not need to meet a requirement. Most public programs do have these requirements, such as Energy Assistance, they set standards, families must make an 30,000 dollars per year this is the max income for household of 3 people living in the household, in order for the program to help pay for electricity bills. While private programs organization do not, such as Feeding America, they are the nation's largest hunger relief and food rescue service, they can not be the ones to say you can't eat because you are not skinny enough, they helped provide 3.6 billion meals to various communities around the world. Each one of the private organizations can help who they need to, wherever they want and how they want. Also the private programs are easy for people to access.

]]> 2017-02-16 13:09:15 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154285932 Rachel Sullivan - Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154286070 Private Programs help to alleviate the symptoms of poverty more effectively than the efforts of public programs. Private programs are built on volunteers who genuinely want to help those in need; the public programs are administered by the government because the law states they have to be. Programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Energy Assistance are state based, meaning that the care and help they guarantee applies only to people living in that certain state. Contrastingly, the Salvation Army and United Way programs seek to help everyone in America. Private programs are not bound to the borders of a state. It is true that private programs tend to have religious ties and people may not appreciate the beliefs and teachings of others being forced on them. However, the generosity and genuine care of volunteers show that the presence of a religion is prefered to living in areas of disaster, for example. Private programs are broad, seeking only to help those in need around America. Come famine, disaster, or homelessness, private program volunteers will be on the scene wanting to help.

]]> 2017-02-16 13:09:48 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154286070 Madi Trypus- Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154453296 I believe that overall, private programs have a greater effect on alleviating the symptoms of poverty than programs administered by the government. Private programs are able to help numerous people in numerous ways where as public programs contain long lists of rules and regulations required of those in need. These regulations and eligibility requirements make the process of receiving support difficult and lengthy for people who may require it in a short period of time. Private programs also have a greater sense of pride and passion towards what they are doing. The people who run these programs consist of mainly volunteers who are striving to make the world a better place. For example, the Salvation Army enlists volunteers to go out into the public and talk about their service and what they believe in. These volunteers also help with youth camps, prison ministries, and hunger relief when needed. Other programs such as United Way, strive to build up communities that may be suffering and help educate children, support families, and promote financial stability when it is needed the most. While some may say that private programs are tied too closely to religion and that could lead to exclusivity, these programs have a level of compassion and desire to serve that public programs lack. This alone proves that private programs are more affective at alleviating poverty than public programs. ]]> 2017-02-16 20:12:44 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154453296 Tyler Helzlsouer - Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154454507 The private sector is more effective at combating the symptoms of poverty than the public sector for many reasons. First the public sector has to tax citizens against there will to pay for outreach programs while the private sector can ask for donations or fund there efforts on there own. Supporters of the public sector may argue that the public sector is too muddled in religion or ulterior motives for supporting impoverished people however this couldn't be further from the truth as even though many charities have religious foundations they are arguably freer from agendas and there founders aren't up for re-election and don't need positive press. They also aren't bound by state or even country borders like the public sector is. Also many government programs don't support families basic needs like the private sector does. Feeding America fed 60 million families as of now while most government agencies just provide temporary hosing or jobs, not food or clothing.]]> 2017-02-16 20:16:51 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154454507 Amanda Smith - Public https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154491972 Overall, public programs are best equipped to tackle both the symptoms, and the root causes, of poverty. While private support programs may be able to invest large sums of money and have more freedom within the United States capitalist system, they have the potential to fall prey to all of the same issues that created mass poverty in the first place. These institutions themselves are non-profit, however some of the highest earning CEO's of these groups may earn upwards of $1 million dollars each year. Volunteers in these organizations may mean well, but the persisting wealth gap is undeniable.
Public programs on the other hand, are the most foolproof way to tackle widespread symptoms of the impoverished. Since these agencies and programs are publicly funded, all Americans will be able to chip in towards bettering the future of their nation. Government officials often have set income and cannot abuse their position for profit thereby protecting the overall cause. While private programs work to address loftier goals for the overall community, they often miss the issues themselves. As one can see in Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, one cannot fully address higher goals of creativity and self-actualization without first addressing essentials such as food, shelter, safety, etc. Public programs directly address these needs for the masses. By providing energy assistance, housing subsidies, and programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, poorer citizens will be able to meet their basic needs to look after their families. Parents can know that their children will have access to food, electricity, and shelter without the unstable coverage of an independent group.
Funding for private groups is highly subject to the nation's overall economy. When the economy is booming, these programs may thrive, but in situations such as the great recession of 2008, individuals will lose the ability to freely donate at the same time that the community needs more help than ever. The government on the other hand, is not so feeble.
Despite being publicly funded and requiring taxation, a main issue for many, public programs provide the strongest foundation for a laissez-faire economy based on profit growth. Citizens can be supported enough to find sustainable work in the private sector that can last them the rest of their lives, allowing their taxation to aid the next generation.
While both forms of programs have their flaws, public programs inevitably shine through in this debate.]]> 2017-02-17 00:14:04 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154491972 Danielle Vulcano- Public I believe that public programs are more effective in alleviating poverty than private programs. Public programs are much more reliable because they are government funded and regulated. The government collects taxes to ensure that there will be a stable source of funding to support those who are eligible for assistance. Tax dollars provide a means of paying for public rental housing through housing subsidies and covering medical costs through medicaid. However, private programs often rely on donations or raise money through fundraising events to support the program's activities. Additionally, public programs have concrete requirements and specific criteria that must be met in order to receive aid. For example, an individual must have worked a specific amount of time at a job to establish a "base-period" to qualify for unemployment insurance. This allows for a systematic approach toward reducing poverty and makes it difficult to abuse the program. In contrast, private programs, like United Way, tend to have very vague criteria for eligibility and often claim to help "those in need." Without specific requirements for aid, these programs lack direction and may not effectively alleviate the problem. Some may argue that private programs are better than public programs because they are not government affiliated, but public programs are much more efficient due to the government involvement and regulation. The government creates a reliable and stable program with definitive guidelines and rules that private programs often lack. https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154497387

]]> 2017-02-17 01:00:31 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154497387 Sarah Soff - Private Private programs are a much more direct and efficient way to help a multitude of people in various communities get their basic needs. A program such as United Way helps with the community focusing on the needs of all of its people and helping them shape their way of life in a happy positive manner. The program specifically works on pressing issues in the community, with regards to school, government agencies as well as the local businesses. In public programs the list of requirements goes on forever, and a lot of times checks out for people after a certain number of months, as well as the fact people in need do not always fit the exact eligibility they are looking for specifically but that does not make them any less in need. One specific public programs requirements stood out was the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, because the qualifications were based upon if a woman was pregnant, and the child has to be 18 or under and if over 18 they have to enrolled and attending classes. Private programs are volunteer based communities striving to genuinely help make the world a better place for those who are living in poverty. https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154501124 2017-02-17 01:34:49 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154501124 Anthony Wells - Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154504040 Private programs are better than public programs because they help a wider variety of people. The majority of the private programs in the United States do not have strict requirements in order to qualify for help from the program. If a program even has requirements, they are often very loose, such as being above a certain age. For example, Feeding America, Catholic Charities USA, United Way and Salvation Army all have no criteria required to receive help, and they just help where they see fit, while Meals on Wheels of America has very limited criteria, being of a certain age. Because of this lack of restrictions, private programs are able to reach more people than the public programs. In addition, many private programs also operate outside of the United States, extended their impact to even more people. United Way is located in 40 different countries or territories helping anyone with a wide variety of programs.
On the other hand, public programs have very strict requirements and are therefore limited in how they can help. You have to be a US citizen to qualify for any public programs in the country, which limits the amount of people that the programs can help. In addition, for the majority of programs, you have to make under a certain income, further limited the people that can be helped. Public programs also have much more limited funding because they share tax money with the rest of the government and are not privately funded. ]]> 2017-02-17 02:03:53 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154504040 Ava Falcione- Public https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154510586 Public systems are more effective at alleviating the symptoms of poverty because public systems are aimed towards providing assistance for those specifically of low income. Public systems are run either by the state or federal government in most cases, so it would be harder for a public system to depreciate someone and get away with it. This is unlike private systems, which are led (in most cases) by a CEO or Board of Directors, who can make their own decisions without the federal or state governments interfering; some examples include Feeding America, Salvation Army, and the YMCA, which has benefactors from 125 associations. These types of programs, solitary from the financial protections of the government, are easily capable of swindling people either into or out of their programs, and the people being hoaxed have no protection from it. Public systems are harder to be scammed by because most of these programs have been created by the government for the people, so they have laws within them that make them more complicated to find loopholes around. Additionally, public systems are given to the people who need it for no cost at all in most cases, but for private systems, some of them require payment from individuals. The only downfall of public systems is that they are created for everyone, assuming everyone has the same financial problems, but private systems are more local and are more attuned to individual community’s needs.]]> 2017-02-17 03:14:41 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154510586 Amber Kress-Private Private programs are more affective in alleviating the symptoms and consequences of poverty. They are not bound by state unlike the public sector. They have less regulations than public programs when it comes to who is eligible for their assistance. These programs have a larger variety of services that they offer. Most public organizations require a filled out application, and not everyone receives assistance. Public programs such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families only guarantee assistance to those living in a particular state. Private programs such as the United Way and the Salvation Army have a goal to help everyone that they can. For example, the Salvation Army's main goal is to feed, cloth, comfort, and care for those is need of assistance. They rebuild broken homes and broken lives as they lead addicts to recovery, distribute food, and provide disaster relief. These programs consist of very outgoing volunteers who do their best to care for, and spread religion to anyone who needs it. https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154516155 2017-02-17 04:22:31 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154516155 Anthony Castellone - Public https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154519279 I would argue that public programs are more effective at addressing poverty than private organizations with similar goals. First and foremost, most if not all public programs have clearly defined eligibility requirements, as opposed to some private programs. For example, to qualify for Energy Assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, an individual's maximum income must be less than 150 or 130 percent (respectively) of the poverty line. Many other criteria such as value of assets, age, and disability are taken into account to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly. Meanwhile, private programs like United Way and the Salvation Army don't have specific criteria. They help where it seems appropriate, but the lack of scrutinization makes an inefficient partitioning of resources more likely. In other words, those truly in need that would qualify for a public program may not receive appropriate support while less needy abuse benefits. Additionally, in terms of resources, public programs receive funding from the government by the means of taxes. Medicare and Medicaid are two sizable chunks of taxpayer dollars that allow the elderly and disabled to get health care. Private programs - despite some billionaires that occasionally feel like doing the world a service and donate a small fortune - rely on voluntary donations or other funding, which are not always plentiful. Furthermore, private programs utilize volunteer work, which is spectacular for applying to college, but may also be low in supply. These variables - that public programs avoid with taxes and paid workers - reduce the efficiency and coverage of private programs in comparison, and it's this lack of consistency that proves private programs to be less effective overall.]]> 2017-02-17 05:44:49 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154519279 Jake Rose - Public https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154560362 There has always been an argument over whether or not the government should get involved in economics, and if they should, how involved they should get. This is especially true in terms of programs designed to help others. Many think that these programs should be entirely privately run; that the government should stay away from areas like these and focus entirely on its own issues. In a perfect world, maybe it could play out like that, but in our society, the government is needed for programs like these.

The truth is, private programs rely almost entirely on donations. Donations in general are not very reliable, being directly impacted by the state of the economy and the sense of philanthropy of the people. Government run programs on the other hand, are financed through taxation, which as a rule is more reliable than donations. Another factor in the favor of public programs is that there is no profit or ulterior motives. The government will run a slight deficit with these programs in order to help those in need, while privately run programs will ultimately be much more selective and cautious with their money.

Even still, some people will claim that public programs such as the energy assistance program and the housing subsidy program are less effective than private programs like the YMCA and the Salvation Army. They claim that since the government only helps around 20% of qualified applicants that they are not doing their job. However, that 20% is much larger than even the total applicants that the Salvation army and YMCA see.

]]> 2017-02-17 12:04:01 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154560362 Max Bruce - Private https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154562503 2017-02-17 12:20:30 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/154562503 Alexa Bleiweis- Private 17bleiweisa https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/155852187 I believe that Private programs are better because they are run by donations and they have countless volunteers. Since these programs are run by donations, the government does not have to tax the people. All private programs are funded by people that are willing to donate and they support the cause. It also makes people feel good about themselves when they donate so people are more likely to donate. No one likes to pay taxes and it doesn't make people feel good about themselves when they pay them When the government runs a program, everyone pays for it even if they do no agree with the program. Another reason the Private sector is better is that they do not have a long list of rules that public programs have because they are government ran. These rules can make it hard for people to get the help they need. For example, Medicaid might be semi-easy to attain but to attain it there is many things you must prove. It is also very restrictive to where you can go to the doctor and what it covers. The private sector is also run by volunteers. Volunteers give their time because they genuinely care about the cause. Hired workers might not be as caring because they might work the job just for an income. ]]> 2017-02-23 18:25:21 UTC https://padlet.com/hrubyk/honorsecon1/wish/155852187