Talk:Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

message: "last hired, first fired", in fact the whole line about case loads increasing really needs to be sourced.  I'd look into it, but I'm just reading this trying to find information for a paper due soon, and obviously this won't do for a source.  67.187.48.82 01:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Couple unsigned comments above address POV issues. I agree. There have been plenty of papers arguing that PRWORA was little more than a re-institution of workhouses. It's also cluttered and doesn't go nearly enough in depth. I'm no expert, but I'll contribute as much as I can. Njfuller (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I think it is biased in favor of welfare. The sources are sociologists, who are biased. I'll give you an example. Increasing the minimum wage from 4.20 to 5.15 proves that the minimum wage does not cause unemployment. That would also be true in the 90s. It might not be true today. please get an economist on this, not a sociologist. Or get both, or a mix. Not just one sociologist.Electricbassguy (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_SHORT_HISTORY_OF_THE_1996_WELFARE_REFORM_LAW%2C_February_7%2C_2001
PS : if you can think of a better talk page for this, please copy it there
*PS : see my contribs page for a list of pages I've added CRS reports to Agradman talk/contribs 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report) 

message: The section on reasons for policy reversal is mostly unsourced.  I think that much of it could be sourced to expressed views of one side or the other of the debate, but right now these reasons are given as if they are objectively factual, rather than that they reflect opinions held by various factions in a debate.  
As an example, there is this sentence: "A distinction between the 'undeserving poor' and the 'deserving poor' became apparent."  This suggests -- without sourcing -- that it is objectively true that the existence of "undeserving poor" required a change in policy.  There are plenty of people who would disagree, especially in relation to the children of poor families.  And of course, the word "undeserving" is conclusory -- it doesn't describe an objective difference between one kind of family and the other.  The article addresses the fact that some families remained on welfare by choice.  Some parents might have chosen to do so because work did not effectively replace the benefits provided by welfare; some parents might have simply preferred not to work.  (The latter might be called "undeserving" but it is not the place of wikipedia to make such a declaration.  Wikipedia can cite Reagan or Gingrich making the declaration.)  There was debate about these facts (their existence, their significance), which is addressed to some degree in the article, and is certainly capable of being addressed with properly-sourced factual statements.  "Reasons for Policy Reversal" is also a somewhat iffy section title.  A comprehensive list of "reasons" would have to include political reasons, which for many players probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the underlying legislation.  
David.thompson.esq (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Reasons for Policy Reversal Section 

message: Can anyone explain why this is in the Human Rights Abuses in US category? I don't see anything about human rights under Criticism. Fhqwgads (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 2 years ago without explanation. --Jeremyb (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has greatly improved over the last 6 years, and the newer Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act#Violation_of_universal_human_rights now justifies this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Abuse Category 

message: A good section to add, but a few notes for the contributor.
A citation for the first paragraph would be preferable. Explaining the meaning of TANF is unnecessary because it was done earlier in the article. The first sentence of the second paragraph is confusing, differentiate somehow that Medicaid is the "second key policy". The last sentence of the second paragraph could be more clear, (what percentage of welfare recipients? The percentage that are a minority? The percentage that are immigrants? The percentage of the population on welfare?). In the third paragraph the (e.g. California) is a bit confusing and could be considered "non-neutral". The last sentence in the third paragraph is confusing, explain "inclusion of Medicaid coverage", and how exactly the positive relationship is associated with higher poverty and inclusion. Last sentence has "between" repeated.
Hope this helps, please ask if you have any questions!MindMerchant (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Notes on section under Provisions dealing with effect on immigrants and welfare eligibility. 

message: The Criticism section instead of including anecdotal examples about the major criticisms for the welfare reform bill, it  should include the different analysis of statistics and trends that major research think tanks and policy advocacy groups such as the Center on Budget on Policy Priorities have created in terms of enrollment opposed in AFDC/TANF to child poverty, average family income and other macroeconomic trends that show the economic and financial health of Americans. --Joseweymann (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section Lacking 

message: while the lowering of welfare caseloads was a provision of the Welfare Reform act, the graph with the caseload trends should be moved to the consequences section of the article in order for the reader to reflect on the historical impact of the reform. The graph is also problematic because as the article mentions it is original research, when there are multiple quality analytical graphs about the AFDC/TANF enrollment levels, that even compare it to other macroeconomic trends such as how even though unemployment started and upwards trend in 2000, the trend for TANF enrollment followed a downwards trend. Creating a better picture for the consequences of this policy. This can also be done for other indicators. Joseweymann (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Graph about Welfare Caseloads on Provisions 

message: The PRWOA led to the first trials of the Earned Income Tax Credit as a means of protecting workers from impoverished families but increase labor force participation, this article includes no discussion about this and it should as it would provide the reader a better picture of the impact of the PRWOA.
Joseweymann (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  EITC 

message: — Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty