Talk:Welfare (financial aid)

Could this be merged with Social welfare? -- Zoe

Isn't the "productive/unproductive" comment a little contentious? A working man with a low wage may be more "productive" than a man living off inherited wealth. Exile

Just to clarify that comment - not all welfare payments go to the unemployed.

Also, some welfare is "in kind" eg free health care and education. In the UK, the majority of the population both pays taxes and receives welfare. Also, most people in the UK, regardless of circumstances, will be net gaineInsert non-formatted text herers from the welfare system when in childhood, in old age and in periods of illness and unemployment, and will be net losers during periods of paid employment. Welfare acts as a kind of socialised insurance scheme. So, to characterise welfare as a payment from the productive to the unproductive deserves deletion, or at least putting in quotes, I feel. Exile

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)

Subsidies to help the poor

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)[reply]

Suggestion

What about adding information about the welfare in different countrires around the world? / Kristoffer

Welfare in USA

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. For example, in a speech on July 29, 2002 President George W Bush said he opposes people being on welfare. He said, "We're helping people. . .go from welfare to work. . .that means 40 hours a week. . .16 of those hours can be hours spent on job training or education. . ." [1] That means whether they want to work or not. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Vandalism

Sweet Jesus this article has been vandalized. I'm editing it. Hesperides 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]