| Obama’s “Spread the Wealth”, does that mean making up new welfare programs?

Obama’s “Spread the Wealth”, does that mean making up new welfare programs?

robert asked:


Welfare (financial aid), financial assistance paid by taxpayers to people who are unable to support themselves.
Workfare, an alternative model requiring recipients to participate in work-rehabilitation programs

The purported main goal of workfare is to generate a “net contribution” to society from welfare recipients.
Most commonly, this means getting unemployed people into paid work, reducing or eliminating welfare payments to them and creating an income that generates taxes. Furthermore, it is argued that once a person has recent employment experience, even at entry level, they are better able to obtain gainful, long term employment. Welfare to work programs aim to break the cycle of poverty where welfare dependence can become a way of life.
Workfare participants retain certain employee rights throughout the process.

Some workfare systems also aim to derive contribution from welfare recipients by more direct means. These systems obligate unemployed people to undertake work that is beneficial to their community. The rationale behind these programmes is twofold; Firstly, taxpayers may feel that they get “more value for their welfare dollar” when they observe welfare recipients working for benefits, making such programs more politically popular. Secondly, putting unemployed people into a workplace-like environment attempts to address the argument that one of the biggest barriers to employment for the long-term unemployed is their lack of recent workforce experience.

In the late twentieth century, a perception grew that existing welfare systems were becoming excessively bureaucratic and inefficient.
The United States Social Security system has come under particular criticism, and many political figures, such as George W. Bush, have argued for a more work-based system of welfare provision.

So would the “share the wealth” re-do, re-define, re-examine and possibly re-call the whole welfare system and introduce Workfare as the new program to assist those who have less weath to share?

How would this effect Social welfare provision, government programs that seek to provide a minimum level of income, service or other support for disadvantaged peoples .

Related posts:

  1. Are there programs for ex-offenders in texas once they are paroled and released from prison? LaShone P asked: Will recently be released from prison in...
  2. Does it make more sense to put CHEMICALLY ADDICTED people in PRISON for POSSESSION or in REHAB? Bush is not conservative asked: Addiction is an illness. Narcotics...
  3. what do I need for a job in school social work? narah S asked: I am a Disabled Veteran and I...
  4. are there any rehabilitation programs for stealing? shelly g asked: rehab for stealing or behavioral ...
  5. Should the U.S. develop programs that focus more on rehabilitation than punishment? butterfly asked: would this method reduce its rate of incarceration...

Filed Under Elections |

Tagged With , ,

Comments

5 Responses to “Obama’s “Spread the Wealth”, does that mean making up new welfare programs?”

  1. puppetmastersp99 on March 30th, 2009 6:33 am

    Lower taxes does not equal welfare.

  2. DiscoRick on March 30th, 2009 7:32 am

    Here we go.. “I don’t want my hard earned money going to a bunch of n-words!”

    This argument kills me especially being that your money is being stolen by shifty banks and crappy de-regulation policies.

  3. Roman C on April 8th, 2009 7:09 pm

    It means higher taxes because the govt. decides to take from Peter to pay Paul. It is pre-socialism.

  4. Bon Bon on April 14th, 2009 8:05 pm

    not necessarily more social welfare programs, it might just mean that Shobama and her 11 illegitimate children need more money

  5. Chill on April 16th, 2009 9:32 pm

    I agree with you yes the people who have worked harder are more entitled for the money.

    But when you say that you have to think and say hey american needs the money cause we are in an economic rut.

    The richer people can afford to pay it and yes we can argue that the middle class should pay but if we make them pay more, then they might not be able to have money for more and more taxes

    Then if that happens that will put us more of an economic problem if the rich won’t pay and the middle class can’t afford it.

    So bottom line it is not fair but the rich can afford and still live happily while the middle class can’t and won’t help us get anywhere in our economic problems.

    Another thing if you are Christian like John McCain the bible says to help the poor. Kind of hypocritical huh? But the thing is Obama is going to pay our debt to China and use the money for a bail out plan on wall street not give it to the poor.

    What he means by distributing the wealth is lowering taxes for the middle class so they can make more money.

    So then Obama is going to make the future better for our kids so they don’t go into the adult life with all of these taxes. So their you go and I hope you understand.