This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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).
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)
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)
Don't forget childcare, at least in the US. Hyacinth 04:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about adding information about the welfare in different countries around the world? / Kristoffer
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)
Could I just point out that the bold opening statement "Welfare is financial assistance paid to people by governments" is incorrect. 'Welfare' in this context is specific to North America. European English (UK & Ireland) uses terms like 'social security' as does Australian English. While we understand what Americans mean by 'welfare' and 'being on the welfare', the use of this word is culture-specific and not simply a global term as the article imples. A simple clarification to point out that this is a north American perspective would help here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxteth o'grady ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the very word welfare has such a vastly different meaning in the US than in, for instance, Finland, I think there should be separate articles (i.e. Welfare in the United States, Welfare in Nordic countries, Welfare in Europe, Welfare in Latin America, etc.). Welfare in Europe would only need a hatnote to indicate the Welfare in Nordic countries article, which is sufficiently distinct to have its own article, as is Welfare in the United States. Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sweet Jesus this article has been vandalized. I'm editing it. Hesperides 17:33, 5 D6 (UTC)
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)
I agree with Qworty. I turned to this article to get a simple history/exposition of how welfare operates in the US (comparison with other countries would be nice too). We do not need all the political baggage except concise statements as to how the system has been criticized/appreciated. "Corporate welfare" is as noted. simply a sarcastic term, no need for it here. Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, not the OpEd page.
Cherrywood 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted most written by Robert Clark Young, using the names Qworty and Geri Litton. Geri Litton is a proven sockpuppet of Qworty
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)
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)
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) macktheknife ( talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
??? Punkymonkey987 ( talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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).
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)
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)
Don't forget childcare, at least in the US. Hyacinth 04:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about adding information about the welfare in different countries around the world? / Kristoffer
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)
Could I just point out that the bold opening statement "Welfare is financial assistance paid to people by governments" is incorrect. 'Welfare' in this context is specific to North America. European English (UK & Ireland) uses terms like 'social security' as does Australian English. While we understand what Americans mean by 'welfare' and 'being on the welfare', the use of this word is culture-specific and not simply a global term as the article imples. A simple clarification to point out that this is a north American perspective would help here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxteth o'grady ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the very word welfare has such a vastly different meaning in the US than in, for instance, Finland, I think there should be separate articles (i.e. Welfare in the United States, Welfare in Nordic countries, Welfare in Europe, Welfare in Latin America, etc.). Welfare in Europe would only need a hatnote to indicate the Welfare in Nordic countries article, which is sufficiently distinct to have its own article, as is Welfare in the United States. Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sweet Jesus this article has been vandalized. I'm editing it. Hesperides 17:33, 5 D6 (UTC)
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)
I agree with Qworty. I turned to this article to get a simple history/exposition of how welfare operates in the US (comparison with other countries would be nice too). We do not need all the political baggage except concise statements as to how the system has been criticized/appreciated. "Corporate welfare" is as noted. simply a sarcastic term, no need for it here. Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, not the OpEd page.
Cherrywood 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted most written by Robert Clark Young, using the names Qworty and Geri Litton. Geri Litton is a proven sockpuppet of Qworty
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)
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)
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) macktheknife ( talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
??? Punkymonkey987 ( talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
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)