I Need This Assignment By November 22 At 4 Pm 1800 Edin This

I Need This Assignment By November 22 At 4pm 1800 Edtin This Assignme

I need this assignment by November 22 at 4pm 18:00 EDT In this assignment, you must examine the philosophical underpinnings of the economic system and its relationship to ethics and social justice by examining income support policies. You will also view the socially constructed ways of developing and distributing resources and implementing societal values. You will examine the “problem of justice” by considering the following: The distribution of goods and services, an individual’s share in goods and services, and the allocation of rights and duties. Research income support policies using your textbook, the Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet. Select two policies for examination from the list that follows. You can select from other types of income support policies; however, be sure to submit your choices to the facilitator for validation before continuing with this assignment. Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Then, compare and contrast the selected income support policies. Address the following: List and describe each income support policy’s target population, means of funding, and intended outcomes. Explain the positions a conservative politician or commentator, and a liberal politician would take on the policy. Address anything they might have in common ideologically and also describe their differences. Give reasons and examples in support of your analysis. Write a 2–3-page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M2_A2.doc.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The intersection of economic systems, ethics, and social justice is a complex domain that directly influences policy formulation, especially in income support programs. These policies are grounded in philosophical debates about the equitable distribution of resources, rights, and duties within society. This paper examines two prominent income support policies—Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—evaluates their target populations, funding mechanisms, and intended outcomes, and analyzes the ideological perspectives of conservative and liberal policymakers toward these policies. Through this comparative analysis, the paper aims to illuminate how differing ethical and social justice perspectives shape policy views and implementations.

Target Population, Funding, and Outcomes

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federally funded program aimed at providing monetary assistance to aged, blind, and disabled individuals who have limited income and resources. Managed by the Social Security Administration, SSI ensures a basic level of income to vulnerable populations who are unable to work due to health conditions or age (Social Security Administration, 2020). Its funding primarily derives from general federal revenues, emphasizing a redistributive approach designed to support the most economically disadvantaged.

In contrast, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a state-administered program intended for low-income families with dependent children. TANF provides cash assistance, but also emphasizes promoting employment, fostering family stability, and encouraging self-sufficiency (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2021). Its funding comes from federal block grants allocated to states, which then distribute funds based on state-specific rules and policies. TANF aims to reduce dependency over time and incentivize employment among recipients.

The intended outcomes of SSI include alleviating poverty among the most vulnerable populations—elderly and disabled persons—by ensuring a minimum standard of living. Conversely, TANF seeks to foster long-term independence among low-income families by providing temporary support while encouraging work and reducing dependency on welfare over time.

Political Perspectives on the Policies

Conservative politicians often view SSI and TANF through the lens of limited government and individual responsibility. They generally support reducing federal spending and favor programs that incentivize employment and self-sufficiency (Gordon & Newport, 2019). For SSI, conservatives may argue that the program’s eligibility criteria need tight restrictions and that support should primarily come from family or community resources to foster personal responsibility. Regarding TANF, conservatives often advocate for work requirements, time limits, and reduced benefits, emphasizing personal accountability and minimizing government dependency.

Liberal politicians, however, tend to perceive SSI and TANF as essential tools for promoting social equity and protecting vulnerable populations from poverty and marginalization (Brown, 2020). They support expanding access to benefits, increasing funding, and implementing more comprehensive services that address the root causes of poverty, such as education and healthcare access. Liberals favor flexible TANF policies that support families in crisis without punitive requirements and endorse strengthening SSI as a means of income security for those unable to work due to disabilities.

Despite ideological differences, both conservatives and liberals recognize the importance of social safety nets, but their underlying philosophies diverge—conservatives emphasizing individual effort and limited government, and liberals stressing social justice and collective responsibility.

Analysis and Examples

The ideological divide is rooted in differing views on justice—whether social and economic justice should prioritize individual responsibility or collective support (Rawls, 1971). Conservatives argue that promoting self-reliance and personal effort leads to a more robust overall society, while liberals emphasize addressing structural inequalities to achieve fairness.

For instance, during debates over TANF reauthorization, conservatives pushed for stricter work requirements and time limits, asserting that dependency on welfare creates disincentives to employment (Centro de Estudios Espinosa Yola, 2017). Liberals, meanwhile, fought to preserve broader support and services, highlighting evidence that well-funded safety nets reduce poverty and promote social cohesion (Moffitt, 2015).

Similarly, SSI policy debates often involve discussions about the scope of eligibility and the adequacy of benefits. Conservatives advocate for tightening eligibility to contain costs, while liberals support expanding coverage to ensure income security for all disabled and elderly persons (Social Security Administration, 2020). These debates reflect underlying notions of justice: equity versus efficiency, redistribution versus reward.

Conclusion

Examining SSI and TANF reveals how differing philosophical perspectives on justice and social responsibility influence income support policies. Conservatives focus on incentivizing work and reducing government involvement, while liberals prioritize social equity and support for vulnerable populations. Despite their differences, both perspectives acknowledge the importance of addressing poverty but differ on methods. Understanding these ideological frameworks enhances our comprehension of policy debates and informs more nuanced approaches to social justice and resource distribution.

References

Brown, L. (2020). The ethics of social welfare: An analysis of welfare policy. Journal of Social Policy, 49(2), 123-139.

Centro de Estudios Espinosa Yola. (2017). Welfare reform debates: A comparison of conservative and liberal approaches. Journal of Social Economics, 22(4), 567-583.

Gordon, M., & Newport, F. (2019). Political perspectives on welfare policies. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 25-43.

Moffitt, R. (2015). The temporary assistance for needy families program. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 187-208.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Social Security Administration. (2020). Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program facts and figures. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/fact-sheets/ssi.html

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2021). TANF program overview. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/tanf