Talk:Welfare reform

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 16 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviaiden1. Peer reviewers: Bshy01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Svg1901. Peer reviewers: LizCottle, Mayaavela.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic

The article is almost entirely unencyclopaedic in it's current form. The only bit that belongs is "Welfare reform refers to the process of reforming the framework of social security and welfare provisions." Examples should be done away with because welfare reform isn't a singular phenomenon, it can move in either direction or laterally. The examples from Britain and France should be split into articles on the British and French welfare systems respectively - and/or one on public welfare generally, but not on "welfare reform" specifically - and the rest of the article is just plain waffle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.137.137 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

US-centric

go fuck your self!This page is US-centric. There are movements in favor of welfare reform in many other countries. David.Monniaux 16:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm new on this page...Canadian. Maybe the difference between two of ass cheaks is in how you view the term of "welfare reform". It isn't positive or negative on its own. In the US it has a particular value though: cuts to funding (a POV way of getting to my point).Use the term "Common Sense Revolution and you'll get a huge reaction in Ontario....for or against...but the term itself doesn't mean anything...it was a slogan for a set of political changes to (mainly) social programs--Marcie 07:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Need some citations

I'm trying to use this page to do some research, but am finding it wanting. This line in particular would be very useful, if I had a reference to back it up:

Later, the scale of welfare cheating was found to be very small...

Sources on this politically charged subject are intimidatingly confusing. Could somebody assist me in verifying this? Many thanks in advance. – Clockwork

Leaning towards the right

Is it me, or does this article seam to lean towards the Gingrich-point-of-view (GPOV as I call it)? I put a POV on this article because I was thinking that it is. It seems that the wording of the article leads more towards a conservative ideal rather than that of a neutral point of view, as preached by Wikipedia. Now, leaving my personal political opinions out of this, I'm seeing some need for change, beginning with some real citations in this article (example: "The tide of public opinion in favor of some change to the welfare system was considerable.[Haskins 2006]"). If anyone agrees, disagrees, please note it. Editor19841 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The outcomes section cites no sources, and somehow connects the drop in child poverty among African Americans to the welfare reform act alone. And why does it link to Newt Gingrich at the bottom, and only to the republican party's "Contract with America"? This article is about welfare reform not about welfare reform in America alone, and it certainly should not focus on the conservative viewpoint on welfare reform alone. There have been many analysises that disagree with the conclusions of this article yet these criticisms have not been included. For example see: http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/welfarereform.cfm This article is in desperate need of a reworking. BTAUS 04:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about; a lack of a world-wide view, and the fact that not just this article's worshiped conservatives are involved in welfare reform. There needs to be a serious tide of change with this article. Editor19841 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see a rightwing bias, especially with statements such as this: "Clinton, once elected, worked with a Democratic congress and met with considerable success in moving people from welfare to work through state waiver programs. These programs allowed states to experiment with various welfare reform measures.The system became a common target of Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders, though changes had already been set in motion by Clinton and the Democrats."

There is neither citation of Democratic-initiated measures, nor bill numbers or names. Why would Republicans attack state welfare experimentation when that was a component of their Personal Responsibility Act? I'm only saying that it provides no citation or examples to back up the claim, and appears as a pro-Clinton point of view. The history is much more complicated than this article suggests.

For instance, here is an archived criticism of President Clinton's welfare reform plan at the Heritage Foundation by Robert Rector: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/IB200.cfm . Since it is an old article and has many errors in it, let me clean up some important parts of it:

"The reason only a tiny number of recipients will be required to work under the Clinton plan is because of the huge number of exemptions and limitations associated with the work obligation. The most glaring exemption is that parents born before 1972 will not be subject to any time limits or work requirements at all. This alone exempts nearly 80 percent of the current AFDC caseload from the work requirement."

"The 'two years and then work' rule is purely cosmetic. It is subject to so many limitations that, if enacted, it would have virtually no effect on the actual operation of the welfare system."

"While the bill's time limits and work requirements are a sham, even worse it does nothing about the two most important welfare reform issues: exploding welfare costs and the crisis of illegitimacy. Last year, federal and state governments spent over $320 billion on welfare; by 1998 welfare costs will rise to over $500 billion, costing on average nearly $5,000 for each taxpaying household. And today nearly one in three American children are born out of wedlock; President Clinton himself has warned the illegitimate birth rate will soon rise to fifty percent. Yet the Clinton 'reform' will do nothing to deal with mushrooming welfare costs or the soaring illegitimate birth rate."

The point is that we should be more specific as to who originated the ideas of: --Time-limit on receiving aid --State experimentation --Cutting off aid to unmarried women --Not increasing benefits per illegitimate child --Mandatory work hours

Here is conservative criticism of the Personal Accountability Act by Doughlas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24784/pub_detail.asp

---

Where is the history of Rep. Patrick Moynihan in all this. He is the person that crafted this legislation over an Easter vacation.

The conservative Democrat has a long history for hating the poor and welfare ideals. The late Moynihan had grown up in the mean streets of Hell's Kitchen as his festering disdane for the poor and how they handled their lot came through in flying colours with his creation of Welfare Reform. Do the research... you will find it.

below is an ie. http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/Moynihan.htm

Maverick-X 12:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering Major Reworking

I've started to add NPOV language, but this article is basically going to require a major overhaul. The only way I see saving anything that stands in the article is in making it a section with a title along the lines of arguments for. --Hagan jared 23:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reworking

I am continuing to expand the article. I am still unsure as to what to do with the material already in the US section. I could really use the help of a person versed in welfare laws and the movements to reform them, especially those outside the US. An international perspective is needed. Hagan jared 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Page was vandalized, fixed this to the best of my ability. Do not know whether any content was deleted? Note: International information seriously lacking in this article. UK information regarding latest welfare reform inaccurate; piece of legislation not part of what is considered "The Welfare Reforms". --DoctorsDaughter 14:03, 5 May 2009 (GMT)

Welfare Reform in the United States

Why is there no longer any information about welfare reform in the United States, especially the Clinton-era acts? Why has the U.S. section been missing since February, and why has no one noticed or fixed this major omission? I restored the United States section, which links to Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Midtempo-abg (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Template added today and later blanked.

I blanked the template recently added to this page because it seemed to me to be potentially highly contentious. There should be a good reason for adding this kind of template because there are already categories and related links as a way of getting further information.

I'd be grateful if editors would take a look at the template as it was before I delted it and also at the discussion I started at the template's talk page and provide some feedback.

I just have a sense that visuality of the template and some of the subcategories could have had a politically unbalanced presentation not in the spirit of Wikipedia. For instance the linking with articles about the negative side of the welfare state (fraud, dependency, etc.) without equal linking to articles on the positive side (alleviation of stress, social cohesion, etc.). Also some of the articles where the template was placed seem to me to have very little to do with the welfare state per se. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up

Cleaned up article removing bios and paragraphs not directly on subject. 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Image?

Bill Clinton signing Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act legislation

I do not understand the point of the image, which as far as I can see depicts a personal act of charity and has nothing to do with Welfare reforms. I feel the picture here would be more suitable. Leutha (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2023 and 9 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IsmaelEden (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mviva22, Gwugradstudent.

— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)