Talk:Welfare (financial aid)

message: There is no single program, or set of policies that can be termed "welfare." The page should basically be deleted, or replaced by links to specific programs, (such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which is what comes to my mind when most people say "welfare."
72.191.184.2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Problem With the Page

message: A while ago this was in the article. I think most people upon seeing it would dismiss it immediately as a reason you could get it. But, I wonder, can you? I was reading a site once that talked about how 100 years ago people thought people would be perfectly content if they could get food, water and shelter for free. And, it talked about how any welfare bum in Canada can. I would suspect if this is true you can get it for this reason then it would only exist in the more smaller countries. Although, you be considered a lazy person and ridiculed as such, but is it possible? The snare (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were to happen, then the state/country would go bankrupt. I think it's already happening in the USA though. :-( 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwillingness to work

message: The following sentence fragment:
  Federal welfare and public assistance spending, which can reach to over 400 billion dollars annually...
does not appear to be supported by the link given, unless I'm misunderstanding something.  The audit given reports that number as the total amount of grants to non-federal entities, a pretty general-sounding category to me, and reading through the documents there, it is clear that they are not all somehow related to public assistance.  I'm changing it until someone can give a better reference. Xezlec 19:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dollar figure

message: Don't forget childcare, at least in the US. Hyacinth 04:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Childcare

message: Currently, the Further Reading section occupies a full half of the article! Perhaps some trimming is required? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: See Talk:Subsidy for some ideas, under the heading Subsidies to help the poor. Some is relevant to this article. --Singkong2005 05:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidies to help the poor 

message: Since this Wikipedia article seems to take welfare for granted, I think it needs to be pointed out that some people have been actively opposing the very existance of welfare. The President George W. Bush said he was going to help people get jobs, that not true. More people are out of work now then ever. Most people wamts to get off of welfare, but they can't because of no job experience and no work.       .  This is a serious problem, so to be an information source maybe the article shoud mention that there are threats to welfare. -- Chuck Marean 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article "takes welfare for granted." It does describe it as an existing social service, which it is. Perhaps you feel the mention of welfare reform could be expanded here? (However, I don't think you are correctly interpreting the President's speach, but that's not really relevant here) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Bush seems to be saying is that welfare recipients should perform some work or undergo training - this is not the same as saying welfare per se should be abolished. Some people DO advocate the complete abolition of welfare (which has been around in one form or other for thousands of years, though not always provided by the state) Exile 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welfare in USA

message: This remains one of the worst politico-economic articles on Wikipedia. There are no citations, it's poorly written and explained, and doesn't flow. I will do my best to improve it, but we really need the help of some expert economists. Walton monarchist89 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, but I'm not an economist and I don't know any who'd be interested in helping out Wikipedia!  I'm busy with Lawyer and Expressway and Freeway, which is hard enough because these are all contentious topics.  --Coolcaesar 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As of now this is still one of the worst articles that I've ever seen on Wiki. There are so many things which are US-centric that I wouldn't know where to start and I don't even live in the US. This article and directly related articles need task-force attention. But a main problem is that the subject is so politically loaded in all developed countries that it would be a super magnet for vandalism and political extremists of all sorts.--TGC55 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: Wikipedia, I was so sad to read this article. Whom ever wrote it and has been editing it should be ashamed of them self. I am very fimular with the system both a ex user and working in the system. A lot of what is being said here is just plan spitful.
It really should be honestly restudied and then rewritten.
spell check buddy--75.42.92.157 (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article as it currently stands is not bad. It's surprisingly free of POV considering the subject matter. I expected a worse article. I'm completely pro-welfare, so if this was a badly-biased NPOV article, I'd definitely notice and complain. But it's not, for the most part. --Nat (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biased? The article states what's going on with welfare (in relation to the USA). They are the only industrialized country without an universal public health care system and very low standard in unemployment benefits. The Reagan-Bush-Newt-Clinton era emphasized the lack of protection for the poor or unemployed, a social conservative business morality allowed corporations to decide ones' socioeconomic fate, and the "baby-boomer liberal" promotion of poverty among the ever-rising underclass of Americans (the historical poor in rural areas). Both the left and right exploited the fears of lower-middle class, working-class whites and poor urban blacks for so long, the US government began to "roll back" on welfare in favor of spending on military expenditures for the last decade of the cold war, plus we're still paying for the Vietnam war and you won't imagine the cost of the War on terror will be in the next century. Welfare wasn't meant to replace the "Puritan work ethic" although in decline by big businesses to mass hire illegal immigrants and "workfare" of mostly black single moms in fast food joints or Wal-Marts, then lay them off if they felt could become unionized. The death of employee unions as a form of "socialism" is just a stab in workers' rights we once held truly in the anti-Communistic 1950s, after the previous war when American values fought and defeated Fascism. The welfare system in America won't be around any longer, just when we needed the most...and the previous 5 or 6 recessions since 1973 didn't wake up America enough.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW so biased this info is 

message: Biased?  I guess so, just as the California Hart Lawsuit discriminated against persons who were on GA during certain periods in 1977 and 1988.  That's eleven years separating the two periods where no "underpayments" occurred.  Yeah, OK.
The Hart Lawsuit of the 1990's was supposed to replenish the coffers of GA recipients who were said to have received sub-standard GA grants, they were awarded amounts of money that was said to have been shorted from their GA payments.  There were certain years cited for underpayments; two small time periods were omitted from the suit.
Who did the math?  Were those two time periods (1977 and 1988) specifically perfect?  No underpayments at all in those years?  Were the social workers who were employed then far superior to those in the other years, they made no horrendous mistakes?  Or was there some other reason(s) that those two years were left out?
The Hart Lawsuit caught a lot of publicity a decade or so ago, now it's harder to find.  And you sure don't find it here, do you?
Why is that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.120.255 (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: California's General Assistance "Hart Lawsuit"

message: This should be mereged with Social Welfare Provision since 'welfare' is an american term which is culture-specific and not common to all English users. Social welfare provision, however, is a suitable over-arching title beneath which local systems may be described.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxteth o'grady (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what term is common to all English users?  'Welfare' is common enough that it was used in the article by R. M. Blank (2001) "Welfare Programs, Economics of," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 16426-16432 Abstract.  The term 'welfare state' came into common use from the British in 1941 and was quickly associated with the Beveridge Report in 1942 ("welfare state," The New Palgrave (1987), v. 4, p. 895).  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

text: For further discussion, see Talk:Social welfare provision#Merger proposal.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have previously mentioned, I think there is sufficient distinction between the cultural contexts of welfare systems - indeed even the word welfare - in different countries, to support discussing these in separate articles according to their cultural context. I could even see creating a "WikiProject Welfare" to work on articles such as Welfare state, Social welfare provision, Welfare reform, Welfare (financial aid), Welfare in the United States, Welfare in Europe, Welfare in the Nordic countries, etc. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, above there are 3 non-U.S. sources on the linguistic uses of "welfare." I cannot see that there is much connection of the preceding with the heading of this section title (except possibly  against 'welfare' in any merged article title, a different matter from merger as such).   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I did not clearly indicate this, but I agree that we could certainly merge these into an article about welfare generally, and have it link to related articles (Welfare in USA, Welfare in Nordic Countries, etc.).  Good work below too, Espoo.  I just think rather saying "anything done to promote..." I would say "any social program designed to promote...", but good work overall.  Sorry I haven't been more active on these articles.  I have been tied up with heraldry articles and the centrifugal force controversy. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal

message: Proposed beginning of new article:
Welfare is anything done to promote the basic well-being of people in need, especially when they have personal or social problems. This usually consists of efforts especially by government and institutions to improve the financial situation of individuals in need but also includes efforts to improve their employment chances and may include efforts to improve many other aspects of their lives including sometimes their mental health. In many countries, most such aid is provided by family members, relatives, and the local community and is only theoretically available from government sources.
In American English, welfare is often also used to refer only to government financial aid provided to very poor or unemployed people, which is called benefit(s) in British English.
In a more general sense, welfare also means the well-being of individuals or a group, in other words their health, happiness, safety, prosperity, and fortunes.
The above is essentially a summary of the sources mentioned above and ensures a global and correct presentation of the general concept.--Espoo (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article [[Welfare (aid)]] 

message: ??? Punkymonkey987 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is truely obvious, families headed by one parent (usually an unemployed single mother) or more than 3 or 4 children under age 16 are more favored to be on welfare rolls than a single adult without children nor a marital partner/spouse. Single adults are viewed as more financially strapped nowadays, but in this economy more married couples (Childless or with children) feel the pinch of the worst economic downturn in 80 years. The 2008/2009 recession has made more Americans realize the importance of social welfare programs to assist the unemployed, the retired and financially challenged families. The credit crunch, failed banks, bad mortgage home loans, rising costs of living and welfare program cuts add on the burden for over 100 million more Americans expected to join the 30-40 million legally poor.   
The USA has changed from the 1960's: economics, population and government policies are radically different. A shift of people to the far-flung suburbs, white-collar jobs are limited or harder to obtain in urban areas, the dying small-town agricultural base and a deindustrialized minimum-wage-based economy from outsourcing to countries where textiles or other "manual labor" jobs are cheap. Also our population is more older and dependent on Social Security expected to dry up soon, and a low-income non-white majority of 500 million is expected in the next 20-30 years. The US government moved farther left than it has since the early 70's, but the majority are center-right or opposed the social welfare upgrade they actually need more than ever. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Cash aid and most other welfare programs, seem to favor families more than single people?