This is a class discussion post that needs to be approximately 2-5 paragraphs in length. 

***Discussion Post should be followed accordingly each question asked needs to be answered.

********I will post the students response below.  With the Student response it should be 1 paragraph in length reply to the students disccusion.

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

ALL QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED!!!!

********************Discussion Post*****************

One of the big issues that is relevant to all types of social welfare programs is the ideal level of government for administration.  What are some of the relative advantages or disadvantages of having social welfare programs controlled at the state level or at the federal level?  Ideally, I would like to see some examples as well.

************************ Student Response #1 ***************************

The ideal level of government for administration of social welfare programs in my opinion is the state level. Administering social welfare programs at this level makes it easier for government to allocate resources to citizens who need access. It also reduces the workload and potential delay of a federal government responding to the needs that citizens may have in their respective state. Unfortunately, people who have access to social welfare programs, take advantage of the system. On the state level there is no law in place that effectively prevents citizens from abusing the intent of social welfare programs. For this reason, Administration on the federal level may be more appealing. A positive of the federal level is that there is a cap on the years in which someone can benefit from social welfare. This is a concept that should definitely be implemented on the state level. Another issue administration by state is the difference of requirements to receive social welfare based on the state you reside in. Both levels of government have their pros and cons. But, the most important thing to consider in the administration of social welfare is that the people who are truly in need of assistance are being assisted. In order to filter through and provide resource for people in need, I believe states are needed to administer the social welfare programs.

************************ Student Response #2 ***************************

One of the biggest drawbacks of having welfare be handled at this level is inconsistency. If the Federal government let the states handle welfare however they see fit, it is very possible that some states would have a very simple program if they had one at all. This being said, there would also be one or two states with programs better than any other state. This leads to the possibility of people flocking from their home state, to the ones with the best programs. The states with the best programs likely will be unable to handle the influx of people, ruining the system over time. This cycle would continue over many years until social welfare is restored to the federal system.

This is only one scenario though. There is also the possibility that the states all have a proportional level of social welfare to suit the needs of the state. Assuming people do not leave/enter states in waves, the states that need better programs can create one, and those who do not, can have a weaker one. For the states that provide weaker programs, another concern is even if they have a program in place, it may not support concepts like medicare, SNAP, unemployment insurance, etc. This is a problem because the inconsistencies could cause many people well below the poverty line to suffer much harder. Although a “one-size fits all” approach is not the best for these programs, divvying them to the states has to many possible consequences.