It is self evident as to why one can be torn between two different perspectives on the controversial state of poverty, and whether or not it is an individual problem. Or in this particular instance, if social-welfare programs hurt or help those living under poor and needy circumstances. I have researched both sides in an unbiased fashion, and come to the conclusion that yes, from one perspective poverty is an individual problem based mainly on poor choices one might make in life. People have the freedom of three things in life: responsibilities, choices, and consequences. One must make choices based on their responsibilities, and then, in return, be willing to accept the consequences of their choices. That way, when someone falls under destitution, they have no one to blame but themselves. On the other hand, there's society and the government. Under certain circumstances one may not have a choice whether or not they live in poor conditions. Completely eliminating all social-welfare is not the lone solution in reducing poverty.
The majority of people in this world have a tendency to fall in to what I like to call their comfort zone, and when they happen to stumble upon this zone moving away from it is not so easy at times. Individuals are well aware of the fact that social-welfare will continue to be provided by the government as long as it is needed and the person in need fully qualifies. The problem here is because the needy person(s) realizes that as long as sufficient funds are made readily available; there is no need in finding a sense of urgency to search for employment. This is when they fall into that comfort zone mentioned earlier. A random criticism of social-welfare in a recent article supports this argument,
Social-welfare policies undermine economic growth and fail to reduce the number of poor in the long run, even if they provide some temporary assistance. Higher rates of progressive taxation and more