Under Clinton's administration the welfare reform of 1996 demonstrated social improvements. The basic concept of the welfare reform was to require people who are physically able to work or prepare for work would be allowed to receive welfare aid if eligible. This welfare reform improved job employment and lowered child poverty.
The definition of work is now being questioned. Obama's administration is issuing a directive stating that these work requirements can be waived. This will create more flexibility when it comes to being eligible for welfare. Clearly, this will make it easier to receive welfare for citizens who are struggling with jobs, but is this necessarily needed?
Welfare is a great way to help struggling people have a sense of security while they are trying to get back on their feet. It is needed to keep crisis, such as the Great Depression, from reoccurring such that families were unable to provide for themselves. I'm from Cleveland, Ohio, which is not a city with the best economy. There are many people who genuinely need welfare to make it day to day. These people are stuck in situations where minimum wage jobs are hard to come by. I can understand the significance of welfare for citizens who are in situations they can not control. As long as one is trying to help themselves, they deserve assistance.
On the other hand, not everybody takes initiative and attempts to take the easy way out. I feel as a person you should always want to push to make the best of your situation, but not everyone has an internal drive like that. Many need to be pushed and put under pressure to really get going. The welfare reform that required people to work encourages them to get back on their feet and get off of assistance. Making the requirement to work more lenient will take the pressure off able bodied citizens to really make a great effort to find work for themselves. Come on now, if your getting paid to do nothing whats really motivating you to go work for less money you are currently receiving?