I would like to choose the first one, “Discuss the intent of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. What does this policy communicate about how our society views the poor and poverty in general? What causes poverty? What are the moral implications of this policy and what are some of the historical precedents for the policy. Specifically, draw on some of the social movements from your readings and from our class discussions to draw parallels with current thinking about poverty and the historical roots of such perspectives.”
Here is something I mentioned in class discussion board.
1. “I think as a government, we should ensure that citizens’interests are not threatened or violated. For example, medical security, which is the government to do a better job for citizens. When poor citizens cannot afford medical care, health insurance can help them. When these problems are solved, citizens will have better energy and time to create their own values, which will feed back to society. This is a virtuous circle.
For breaking the stalemate in Washington and in your state capitol. In my opinion, when there is no consensus within the government, it is necessary to weigh which one is more suitable for the current situation, rather than a long period of stalemate.
Finally, I think it is impossible to eradicate poverty. For example, China has a history of thousands of years. Even in the prosperous Tang Dynasty, there were poor people. In my opinion, the rich and the poor are relative. If there are rich people, there must be poor people. When people’s income increases, prices will also rise, and there will always be people who want to make more money. In this way, there will be poor people again. The only thing we and the government can do is to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, but not eradicate poverty completely. “
Hope these things can help you in final paper.