Arnold/Velazquez

The two authors bring about the same subject, but present it in different ways to serve different purposes. Velazquez, a member of congress, attempts to make people aware of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor for the purpose of assisting the impoverished twelfth district in New York. On the other hand, Arnold is a university professor and an author and her purpose is mainly to provoke the thought that the welfare system in the United States is not exactly what the general public believes it to be.

I found it interesting when Arnold stated that "aid is not viewed as an entitlement in the United States," (363). Having never researched the topic of welfare, I presumed that services such as food stamps, welfare, and homeless shelters have been provided ever since the reforms made in Roosevelt's New Deal. I never realized the actual conditions of these services and the ineffectiveness of simply providing food to people living in poverty. There is a popular saying I have heard that relates to this: "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." Instead of simply feeding the poor and housing the homeless, why don't we give more of an attempt to teach these people skills and provide programs to put these people to work (this is assuming that these people living in poverty are willing to help themselves)?

Velazquez points out a vast flaw in the psyche of the American public: more is better. As evidenced by the uneven consumption of resources in the United States compared to the rest of the world, the richest citizens have way more than they need. When people are valued by what they own, the poorest Americans cannot keep up with the rest of the country in terms of possessions. The problem is that these Americans should be more concerned with providing basic needs for themselves and their families. Velazquez is promoting change.